Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions

Speedy renaming and merging

Remember to tag the category page with: {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}}

New requests

• Category:Members of academic and learned organizations to Category:Members of academic organizations – C2C: Category:Academic organizations. 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:52, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Category:North Korean artists groups to Category:North Korean artist groups and collectives – C2C: Category:Artist groups and collectives by nationality 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:27, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Category:Norwegian artists groups and collectives to Category:Norwegian artist groups and collectives – C2C: Category:Artist groups and collectives by nationality 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:26, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Category:Bill Anderson (singer) songs to Category:Bill Anderson songs - C2D--Ymblanter (talk) 05:36, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Category:Bill Anderson (singer) albums to Category:Bill Anderson albums
• Category:Glasgow Society of Women Artists member to Category:Glasgow Society of Women Artists members – C2B: pluralise. 1234qwer1234qwer4 05:20, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Category:Canbodian political artists to Category:Cambodian political artists – C2A. 1234qwer1234qwer4 05:10, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Category:English mixed media artists to Category:English mixed media artists – C2C: Category:Mixed-media artists. 1234qwer1234qwer4 04:32, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Category:British mixed media artists to Category:British mixed media artists – C2C: Category:Mixed-media artists. 1234qwer1234qwer4 04:32, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Category:Canadian mixed media artists to Category:Canadian mixed-media artists – C2C: Category:Mixed-media artists 1234qwer1234qwer4 04:31, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Category:Members of artistic organizations to Category:Members of arts organizations – C2C: Category:Arts organizations. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:56, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Category:Sokol in the United States to Category:Sokol movement in the United States – C2D: Sokol movement, see below. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:55, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Category:Sokol to Category:Sokol movement – C2D: Sokol movement. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:54, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Category:Indigenous organisations in North America to Category:Indigenous organizations in North America – C2C: Only member of Category:Organizations based in North America by subject spelt with an s, and subcategories use a z as well. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:39, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Category:Blizzard games to Category:Blizzard Entertainment games – C2C: Category:Blizzard Entertainment. Go D. Usopp (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Category:Films scored by Richard Marvin to Category:Films scored by Richard Marvin (composer) – C2D: Richard Marvin (composer). DoubleCross (‡) 00:12, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Category:Nymph stub to Category:Nymph stubs – C2C: Stub categories (and categories in general) are usually pluralized. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 23:42, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Opposed requests

• Category:Yap family to Category:Yap family (Tarlac) – C2C: Please change the category name from Yap family to Yap family (Tarlac). Toniker0501 (talk) 06:14, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• @Toniker0501: how is this a case of C2C? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose, I don't think this satisfies C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Category:Trinity College (Canada) alumni to Category:Alumni of Trinity College, Toronto – C2C: to match related categories (i.e. Category:Alumni of Victoria College, Toronto) and main article title (Trinity College, Toronto). RapidDweller (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

  • Oppose the standard is X college alumni, see Category:Alumni by university or college in Ontario. The others should be renamed to match this one.--User:Namiba 19:49, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

    The format you suggest is awkward when applied to colleges of the form "X College, Y" (like Trinity College, Toronto) and the standard category format for these (outside of Ontario at least) is "Alumni of X College, Y" and not "X College, Y alumni". There was a CfD here recently where this was agreed to (if I'm not mistaken). For example, the alumni category for Trinity College, Cambridge is Category:Alumni of Trinity College, Cambridge, not Category:Trinity College, Cambridge alumni. RapidDweller (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

    Would Category:Trinity College, Cambridge, alumni not be the correct formatting in this case, with the additional comma separating the name? Though I don't strictly oppose "Alumni of", as I know there are plenty of categories with that formation in their title instead, so long as some version of the current name remains as a {{catred}}. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:18, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

    Are there any examples of that format with the comma used? I'm not opposed to that either, however I'm going off of the established convention I've seen, which is "Alumni of X College, Y". RapidDweller (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

    That I don't know, actually, and I'm not entirely sure how to find them given the difficulty of search for results based on specific punctuation. I was thinking of instances where place names are in categories, e.g. People from Austin, Texas, by occupation. I guess it might depend on if "Trinity College, Cambridge" is the full name of the school or if "Cambridge" is a disambiguator. In the latter case, I think it makes sense to use a comma there, because comma-separated place names like administrative divisions of countries have them in general and I think this would be the same case. But I could just be talking out of my ass, to be fair. I'm not sure this is addressed in the MoS, I didn't see it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:09, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

On hold pending other discussion

• Category:Cultural institutions and organizations in Chicago to Category:Cultural institutions based in Chicago – C2C: parent is Cultural institutions and : Organizations based in Chicago ^SMason_Garrison 17:01, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Let's wait until this discussion closes. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:09, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Sounds good. :) ^SMason_Garrison 23:59, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Moved to full discussion

• Category:Curacao Neptunus players to Category:Neptunus players – C2D: based on advice from QuietHere.HonkBase (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Moved to full discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Category:DOOR Neptunus players to Category:Neptunus players – C2D: based on advice from QuietHere.HonkBase (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Moved to full discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Category:Traditional Cults to Category:Religious cults – C2D: per my discussion with @Michael Aurel. I am the creator of this category.GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• Moved to full discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  Where? @Marcocapelle can you link it please GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  They did, and you replied to them in the thread one minute before posting this reply. aesurias (she/her) (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  I got confused, apologies. GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Category:United States perennial candidates to Category:American perennial candidates – per C2E and C2D. I have never done this before so I am not sure if a redirect should be kept or not. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• Moved to full discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• Category:Homes of United States Founding Fathers to Category:Houses of the Founding Fathers of the United States – C2D: Per Category:Houses in the United States and Founding Fathers of the United States. User:Namiba 18:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Disagree, these are the homes, places where the lived. Some are houses, others are log cabins, others differ from those. Please leave this category be, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:10, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
    • Moved to full discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Category:12th-century maritime incidents to Category:Maritime incidents in the 12th century – C2C: Per subcats such as Maritime incidents in the 2000s. Please ping me if this should go the other way around... - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 19:50, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Wait a minute! There are parent categories such as 12th-century disasters that fit the categories I just edited. Should I move this to CFD? The centuries, decades, and years with maritime incidents should be harmonized somehow... - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 02:13, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  • @OpalYosutebito: you are right, better discuss this in full CfD. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Category:15th-century maritime incidents to Category:Maritime incidents in the 15th century
  • Category:16th-century maritime incidents to Category:Maritime incidents in the 16th century
  • Category:17th-century maritime incidents to Category:Maritime incidents in the 17th century
  • Category:18th-century maritime incidents to Category:Maritime incidents in the 18th century
  • Category:19th-century maritime incidents to Category:Maritime incidents in the 19th century
  • Category:20th-century maritime incidents to Category:Maritime incidents in the 20th century
  • Category:21st-century maritime incidents to Category:Maritime incidents in the 21st century
    • Moved to full discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:56, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Current discussions

September 24

Category:Lebanese cardiologists

• Propose merging Category:Lebanese cardiologists to Category:Cardiologists
• Propose merging Category:Slovak cardiologists to Category:Cardiologists and Category:Slovak medical doctors

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep both per Fram. 3 articles is just fine for a category. Katzrockso (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge, for scientists and mathematicians nationality is quite trivial and the same applies to medical specialists. I can imagine that we keep American, British and so on categories based on size considerations but in principle the academic specialization is far more relevant. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep all, nom reason no longer true for either cat. Fram (talk) 07:27, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support because though no longer one entry per Fram, both are still sparsely populated (<5 pages). Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 17:33, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge at least the Slovak category. 3 articles is too nartow for a category. I am neutral about the 6 article category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GothicGolem29 (Talk) 22:32, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:History of Redfield, Arkansas

• Propose merging Category:History of Redfield, Arkansas to Category:Redfield, Arkansas
• Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Redfield, Arkansas to Category:Redfield, Arkansas

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:History of Little Rock, Arkansas, by topic

• Propose merging Category:History of Little Rock, Arkansas, by topic to Category:History of Little Rock, Arkansas

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Psychonauts

• Propose renaming Category:Psychonauts to Category:Psychonauts (game)

Nominator's rationale: "Psychonaut" is a term referring to a person who explores altered states of consciousness, usually via psychoactive drugs such as psychedelics. It dates back to the 1950s. There are people who identify as "psychonauts". More recently, a video game franchise called "Psychonauts" started in 2005. Currently, the category refers to the game series and there is no category for the traditional use of the term. I propose moving and distinguishing the category and using "Category:Psychonauts" for the traditional use of the term and "Category:Psychonauts (game)" for the game franchise. Thank you. – AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 22:08, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Rename, as there are also a film and a band by that name. There should not be a disambiguated category at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Psychonauts (video game), which is the disambiguation that would be used if the article wasn't at the base title. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:10, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Yes, even better. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Agreed as well. – AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 18:44, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no category on actual "psychonauts" so this is premature. Psychonauts is also where the video game page is. I do not see the benefit in moving the category to be out of sync with the main article for no apparent urgent need. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:29, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I'm going to make the category on actual psychonauts and add pages to it as soon as the move is done. That's why I'm requesting the move, so I can do that. – AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 00:31, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  But... you don't need a move to do that? You can make it at Category:Individual psychonauts, Category:Psychonauts (parapsychology) or something, then request a move afterwards. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:20, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  I view it as simpler to move the video game category first and then make the new category. Otherwise two categories would have to be moved/renamed instead of just one. Thanks. – AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 03:49, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  The problem is that without an obvious category conflicting with it, there is no reason to move. It is putting the cart before the horse. And when there is just a "just trust me bro" that the other category will be made, there is a possibility it will never be replaced with anything. Tl;dr, always make the other category first to provide actual proof of a conflict. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:36, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:10, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:18th-century Norwegian zoologists

• Propose merging Category:18th-century Norwegian zoologists to Category:18th-century zoologists, Category:18th-century Norwegian scientists and Category:Norwegian zoologists

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category. Gligan1 (talk) 07:43, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Merge, this is not helpful for navigation. But the first article does not have to be moved to Category:18th-century Danish zoologists because it is already in Category:18th-century Danish zoologists. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:57, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• Gligan1, please follow the instructions on setting up a CFD discussion, tag the category appropriately and notify the category creator of this discussion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:41, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• Merge one article categories do not aid navigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. If the first article is both Norwegian and Danish then Category:18th-century Norwegian scientists would also apply. Οἶδα (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:07, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Television stations in insular areas of the United States

• Propose deleting Category:Television stations in insular areas of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty category; subcats now sorted by state Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Empty category. Could have also tagged it CSD C1 but please do not empty categories "out of process". Thank you, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
• Procedural Oppose/Repopulate The category is empty because you emptied it yesterday. We have a whole tree with Category:Mass media by insular area of the United States that has subcats for Category:Newspapers published in insular areas of the United States, Category:Radio stations in the United States by insular area, and Category:Cinema of insular areas of the United States. This tree seems intuitive and it's not clear why we would treat TV differently. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone is going to put all pre-1959 Hawaii television stations here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:05, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Defunct television stations in the United States by state

• Propose renaming Category:Defunct television stations in the United States by state to Category:Defunct television stations in the United States by state or territory

Nominator's rationale: Per naming conventions Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom. Shocksingularity (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

• Defer The outcome of this one should follow the above nomination Category:Television stations in the United States by state so they stay in sync, whether I agree with that outcome or not. (If the current name is kept, the PR and USVI subcats should be moved back under Category:Defunct television stations in the United States where they were located prior to yesterday.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
• Rename we should use state or territory in almost all cases. The only exceptions would be ones where there is something that makes seperating states and territories clearly needed. Television stations are not such a case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:04, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

South Downs artists

• Propose renaming Category:South Downs artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Artists from the South Downs
• Propose renaming Category:Rother Valley artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Artists from Rother Valley

Nominator's rationale: Would be in line with Category:English artists by county. Note that there are no other categories related to either of these geographical locations though. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:01, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Rivers of Nghệ An province

• Propose merging Category:Rivers of Nghệ An province to Category:Landforms of Nghệ An province

Nominator's rationale: Small category per WP:OCYEAR. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 17:08, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:The Crow

• Propose renaming Category:The Crow to Category:The Crow (comics)

Nominator's rationale: Not sure if this qualifies for renaming after the move of The Crow (comics), as the category seems to be an overall page for the franchise. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 16:25, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Just noticed The Crow (franchise) exists; I suppose that's another potential name for the category. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 16:29, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Was just about to post the same thing. Because presumably the subcat The Crow films will be renamed The Crow (franchise) films, not The Crow (comics) films. Though the main The Crow (franchise) article excludes the comics. So... Οἶδα (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Corendon Kinheim players

• Propose renaming Category:Corendon Kinheim players to Category:Kinheim players

Nominator's rationale: Removing outdated sponsor for a baseball team's player categories. (Not all players listed played for the team,Kinheim, during this sponsorship. HonkBase (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

National Landmarks in Ukraine

• Propose renaming Category:National Landmarks in Donetsk Oblast to Category:Monuments of national significance in Donetsk Oblast
• Propose renaming Category:National Landmarks in Kyiv to Category:Monuments of national significance in Kyiv
• Propose renaming Category:Architectural monuments of Ukraine of national importance in Kyiv to Category:Architectural monuments of national significance in Kyiv
• Propose renaming Category:National Landmarks in Ternopil Oblast to Category:Monuments of national significance in Ternopil Oblast
• Propose renaming Category:National Landmarks in Zaporizhzhia Oblast to Category:Monuments of national significance in Zaporizhzhia Oblast

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 17#Category:National Landmarks of Ukraine by region, "monuments of national significance" is a closer translation of the official term "пам'ятки національного значення". Furthermore, this is also what is used by the lists Monuments of national significance in Donetsk Oblast, Sumy Oblast, etc. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 08:27, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Years in the 6th century BC

• Propose merging Category:599 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:590s BC
• Propose merging Category:597 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:590s BC
• Propose merging Category:595 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:590s BC
• Propose merging Category:589 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:580s BC
• Propose merging Category:587 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:580s BC
• Propose merging Category:586 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:580s BC
• Propose merging Category:585 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:580s BC
• Propose merging Category:582 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:580s BC
• Propose merging Category:575 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:570s BC
• Propose merging Category:573 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:570s BC
• Propose merging Category:572 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:570s BC
• Propose merging Category:570 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:570s BC
• Propose merging Category:568 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:560s BC
• Propose merging Category:560 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:560s BC
• Propose merging Category:558 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:550s BC
• Propose merging Category:556 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:550s BC
• Propose merging Category:553 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:550s BC
• Propose merging Category:552 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:550s BC
• Propose merging Category:551 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:550s BC
• Propose merging Category:550 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:550s BC
• Propose merging Category:547 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:540s BC
• Propose merging Category:546 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:540s BC
• Propose merging Category:545 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:540s BC
• Propose merging Category:544 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:540s BC
• Propose merging Category:543 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:540s BC
• Propose merging Category:542 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:540s BC
• Propose merging Category:540 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:540s BC
• Propose merging Category:539 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:530s BC
• Propose merging Category:536 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:530s BC
• Propose merging Category:530 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:530s BC
• Propose merging Category:526 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:520s BC
• Propose merging Category:525 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:520s BC
• Propose merging Category:524 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:520s BC
• Propose merging Category:522 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:520s BC
• Propose merging Category:521 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:520s BC
• Propose merging Category:520 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:520s BC
• Propose merging Category:519 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:510s BC
• Propose merging Category:515 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:510s BC
• Propose merging Category:514 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:510s BC
• Propose merging Category:513 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:510s BC
• Propose merging Category:512 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:510s BC
• Propose merging Category:509 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:500s BC
• Propose merging Category:508 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:500s BC
• Propose merging Category:507 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:500s BC
• Propose merging Category:506 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:500s BC
• Propose merging Category:505 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:500s BC
• Propose merging Category:504 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:500s BC
• Propose merging Category:503 BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:500s BC

Nominator's rationale: Under-populated categories for ancient events (for which the year is sometimes uncertain). Some articles that are not about singular events will need to be purged. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:29, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Trichy railway division

• Propose renaming Category:Trichy railway division to Category:Tiruchirappalli railway division

Nominator's rationale: Opposed Speedy nomination. The main article Tiruchirappalli railway division has never been at Trichy railway division, nor has a Requested Move for the page been initiated to take it there. Citations in the railway division article vary between Trichy, Tiruchirappalli and Tiruchchirappalli. All other categories within Category:Tiruchirappalli use this spelling. – Fayenatic London 14:59, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Copy of Speedy discussion

• Category:Trichy railway division to Category:Tiruchirappalli railway division – C2D: name correction ~2026-43920-27 (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  OBJECT Source used in head article calls it Trichy. Head article should be moved. DuncanHill (talk) 10:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  IMHO the opposition is groundless; the head article in this category is Tiruchirappalli railway division, whose text and citations mainly say Tiruchirappalli rather than Trichy. The article has never been at Trichy railway division and there is not even a redirect at that name. If DuncanHill is referring to the city article Tiruchirappalli, both names are used in citations there, and the long name predominates in the article text. I would process the speedy rename as valid under C2C and C2D despite the oppose !vote. – Fayenatic London 11:10, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Fayenatic london: needs to read the very first reference in Tiruchirappalli railway division and then he needs to apologise. DuncanHill (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  OK, I apologise for not guessing which source you were referring to. That source is indeed first, but I trust you can forgive me as the title of that citation does not include any version of the name. There are other sources which call it Trichy in the citation title, but these are newspaper headlines, where the short name is clearly chosen for reasons of space. Other formal sources such as the map (currently citation 17) use Tiruchirappalli or Tiruchchirappalli (double ch). As the head article has long been at this name, I still think this qualifies for C2D, and even more clearly for C2C. – Fayenatic London 22:12, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  Top tip - the important bits of a citation are in the text, not the title. Oh, and try looking at the article talk page if the name has been questioned - you'll often find useful comments there. DuncanHill (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  • @DuncanHill: you'd better start an RM nomination then. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Rename for consistency. (Keep if the article gets renamed to Trichy after an RM nomination.) Marcocapelle (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See RM at Talk:Tiruchirappalli_railway_division#Requested_move_24_September_2026.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:01, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Rename per nom and Marcocapelle. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 16:52, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

History of US states by location

• Propose merging Category:History of Arizona by location (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:History of Arizona
• Propose merging Category:History of California by location (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:History of California
• Propose merging Category:History of Indiana by location (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:History of Indiana
• Propose merging Category:History of Kansas by location (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:History of Kansas
• Propose merging Category:History of Maine by location (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:History of Maine
• Propose merging Category:History of Nevada by location (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:History of Nevada

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_September_2#Category:History_of_Virginia_by_location. Only the by-city and by-county subcategories belong in a by-location container category, which is small enough to upmerge as a redundant layer. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:55, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge per nom and precedent. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 16:51, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Pocahontas

• Propose deleting Category:Pocahontas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCASSOC, with the exception of Peace of Pocahontas and Werowocomoco the articles are only vaguely related to Pocahontas. The two mentioned articles are already directly linked to from the main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, nom forgets the large subcat, which are also articles directly linked to Pocahontas, and which would be removed from the parent cats of this cat. Fram (talk) 08:12, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OCASSOC and per nom. Full of very vaguely related categories to Pocahontas. The subcategory can remain in its other subcategories, but there is no need to retain this one just for a single relevant subcategory. The Pocahontas article can be linked from that subcategory's description instead. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:26, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete This is built on loose connections, often not defining to the articles. The sub-category can exist without the parent category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Fram. Taghdtaighde (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. Οἶδα (talk) 07:17, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:42, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per Zxcvbnm. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 16:50, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Charities based in Ethiopia

• Propose deleting Category:Charities based in Ethiopia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only contains Strengthening Emergency Response Abilities Project, which was a USAID-funded project, not a charity. Earlier today I set up Category:Non-profit organisations based in Ethiopia which was missing; no objection to renaming the nominated category page over that new one. – Fayenatic London 13:21, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Taghdtaighde (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge to Category:Non-profit organisations based in Ethiopia or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:40, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Category:Non-profit organisations based in Ethiopia. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 16:48, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Garages (parking)

• Propose Renaming Category:Garages (parking) to Category:Multistorey car parks

• Propose Renaming Category:Garages (parking) in the United States to Category:Parking garages in the United States

• Propose Renaming Category:Garages (parking) on the National Register of Historic Places to Category:Parking garages on the National Register of Historic Places

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D, consistency with main article's name, and WP:ENGVAR

These categories contain articles about commercial buildings for vehicle parking. The main article is Multistorey car park, which is a Britishism, while "Parking garage" is the American phrase. The current category names are ambiguous and could just as easily describe parking structures in houses, for which we have Category:Garages (residential). - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• I'm American, so take this for what it's worth, but I would never think to look for "Multistorey car park." I prefer "Parking garages" as the category name, but I acknowledge the conflict with the article title. Mike Selinker (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

  Hmm, maybe to bridge the variations we could do a header with the alternate name for readers and a category redirect so "Parking garages" would show up in Hotcat. The main article has had several unsuccessful RMs to various targets over the years and if/when one eventually passes, as always, I would favor renaming the parent cat to match that consensus. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:40, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Especially for the 3rd category which is clearly US limited. In the US these things are called parking garages. So a category based on a designation in the US should clearly use the language used in the US.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Johnpacklambert: The third one is proposing "Parking garages" though. Did you mean to oppose the first one? RevelationDirect (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  • I opppse all of them. This is a treating of British English as correct and American English as wrong. We should not do renames foe that reason alone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

    • • In this case I think we need to renane the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support the second and third. Oppose the first which needs further discussion at the article first per ENGVAR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Green Arrow television series

• Propose deleting Category:Green Arrow television series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant. There is only one Green Arrow TV series, and it already has it's own category. ★Trekker (talk) 04:30, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Merge to Category:Green Arrow in other media. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:10, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Fraternities and sororities

• Propose renaming Category:Fraternities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fraternities and sororities
• Propose renaming Category:Fraternities and sororities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:College fraternities and sororities
• Propose renaming Category:Sororities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:College sororities

Nominator's rationale: Right now we have the following rather astonishing inclusion of categories: Category:Sororities ⊂ Category:Fraternities and sororities ⊂ Category:Fraternities. The main category for Category:Fraternities and sororities would be Fraternities and sororities, which redirects to College fraternities and sororities. Not sure how the categories are de facto being used, and subcategories like Category:Fraternities and sororities by country need further investigation on which tree they belong in. 1234qwer1234qwer4 04:09, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Rename for less ambiguity. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:15, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Partial support It took a bit of work to wrap my head around this. The renaming of the two college categories to include 'college' makes sense and will cause less confusion (there are some articles in there that are not college fraternities, presumably miscategorised due to the confusing name). The main article for category:fraternities and sororities (and for category:sororities) is college fraternities and sororities (after following the redirects), having been moved from fraternities and sororities in May 2025 (sorority appears to have always been a redirect). However, the main article for category:fraternities is fraternity (and it is a subcat of category:mens's organizations), so I think this category move should await a renaming discussion for the main page. Robminchin (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Category:Asteroids named after Wikipedia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: duplicate nomination. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:30, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Propose undeleting Category:Asteroids named after Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I demand that this category not be removed. -- Wikifanner (talk) 03:55, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• @Wikifanner: please add your comments to this entry. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Gutai group member artists

• Propose renaming Category:Gutai group member artists to Category:Gutai Art Association members

Nominator's rationale: In line with Gutai Art Association and avoiding redundancy. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:53, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Rename for better alignment with the article title. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:19, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 16:39, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Southwestern United States

• Propose renaming Category:Folk music of the American Southwest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Folk music of the Southwestern United States
• Propose renaming Category:Southwestern artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Artists from the Southwestern United States

Nominator's rationale: Should be aligned with Category:Southwestern United States I assume? 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:36, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Rename, also for alignment with article Southwestern United States. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:20, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Οἶδα (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Arduin artists

• Propose merging Category:Arduin artists to Category:Role-playing game artists

Nominator's rationale: Merge to Category:Role-playing game artists and Category:Arduin; not useful for navigation with a single member. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:29, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge - With one single entry, not entirely useful. BOZ (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

September 23

1100s establishments in England

• Propose merging Category:1100 establishments in England to Category:1100s establishments in England and Category:1100 in England and Category:1100 establishments in Europe (2 pages)
• Propose merging Category:1102 establishments in England to Category:1100s establishments in England and Category:1102 in England and Category:1102 establishments in Europe (1)
• Propose merging Category:1103 establishments in England to Category:1100s establishments in England and Category:1103 in England and Category:1103 establishments in Europe (3)
• Propose merging Category:1107 establishments in England to Category:1100s establishments in England and Category:1107 in England and Category:1107 establishments in Europe (1)
• Propose merging Category:1108 establishments in England to Category:1100s establishments in England and Category:1108 in England and Category:1108 establishments in Europe (2)
• Propose merging Category:1109 establishments in England to Category:1100s establishments in England and Category:1109 in England and Category:1109 establishments in Europe (2)

Nominator's rationale: Sparsely populated categories that do not aid in navigation. Per WP:OCYEAR. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 19:04, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Asteroids named after Wikipedia

• Propose deleting Category:Asteroids named after Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: As far as I know, there is no other asteroid named after Wikipedia so this one-entry category is useless for navigation. Moreover, there's no Category:Asteroids named after foo system on en.wiki. Pichpich (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Support There seems very little chance that this could ever become more than a single-entry category, nor are there any obvious parent categories, so it serves no purpose. Robminchin (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nom as it won't likely be populated anytime soon. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 18:47, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SHAREDNAME. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  Oppose! Wikifanner (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Ukrainian LGBTQ people by occupation

• Propose merging Category:Ukrainian LGBTQ people by occupation to Category:Ukrainian LGBTQ people

Nominator's rationale: Redudant category layer, upmerge for now ^SMason_Garrison 17:12, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. It's literally five minutes work at most to populate this. Please make that effort before nominating categories. Fram (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't know what it looked like at the time of its nomination but in its current state, it seems ok. Pichpich (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Pichpich. The politicians subcategory may be nominated for merging though. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:27, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Bahamas national football teams

• Propose Merging Category:Bahamas national football teams to Category:Bahamas national football team

Nominator's rationale: per WP:OVERLAPCAT

National football teams will have different squads for men, women, youth, beach soccer, etc. The Caribbean sibling categories aren't consistent whether they describe that as singular "team" or plural "teams" but there's no purpose in having both categories. (We do sometimes see this pairing when one is a WP:SETCAT and the other a WP:TOPICCAT, but that's not how these are being used.) Both cats are tagged in case the consensus is to reverse merge. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:47, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. Delete the category instead of merging it into that. Because that's referring to the men's Bahamas team, which the women's team article can't go in. FastCube (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Huh, Bahamas women's national football team is already under Category:Bahamas national football team right now. @FastCube: In any case, based on your description, I think your suggesting a reverse merge where we would keep Category:Bahamas national football teams (and get rid of Category:Bahamas national football team). If that is the case, could you clarify your !vote as "Reverse Merge"? (If I misunderstood and you're against a merge in either direction, "Oppose" should stay.) RevelationDirect (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting delete Category:Bahamas national football teams because it's not populated enough (for now, there's not many Bahamas national team articles), and keep Category:Bahamas national football team because it is populated enough as an eponymous category. Just keep Bahamas women's national football team out of Category:Bahamas national football team because they're two seperate teams. FastCube (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 11:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per FC. One is for the men's team only, one is for mens & women's (i.e. is a parent category). GiantSnowman 11:10, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Hatting myself, too many replies

• Neither is currently the parent of the other (No objection to revisiting that during this discussion though.) RevelationDirect (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment (as nominator) No objection if the consensus is to keep both cats and repurpose them. If that is the close, this should go to the working/manual process to move around some of the current articles, make the "teams" category a parent of the "team" one, and change some of their existing parent categories to avoid the current overlap. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the proposal to delete Category:Bahamas national football teams?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:04, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman and RevelationDirect: Thoughts? Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:05, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

My thought remains unchanged... GiantSnowman 18:13, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Since there's not a consensus for my original merge suggestion, I would favor Fastcube's proposal to delete Category:Bahamas national football teams as a second choice (as opposed to GiantSnowman's proposal to make it a parent category). RevelationDirect (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Rename Category:Bahamas national football team to Category:Bahamas men's national football team (should probably be done for all these men's national team cats), keep the teams cat as a parent for men's, women's, and whatever else may be fit into it. Fram (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:19th-century Indian women journalists

• Propose merging Category:19th-century Indian women journalists to Category:Indian women journalists

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 05:35, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 18:44, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. Now 3 entries. Not sure Bangalore Nagarathnamma belongs though. Οἶδα (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Fictional bus drivers

• Propose merging Category:Fictional bus drivers to Category:Fictional drivers
• Propose merging Category:Fictional truck drivers to Category:Fictional drivers

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT, overly narrow category when purged of irrelevant entries. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:08, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge after purging works and nominating character redirects not mentioned at target to RfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:21, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose being someone who drives is just too common to be categorized by. I think we should make Category:Fictional drivers a container category, and keep these categories. In general bus drivers and truck drivers are very different, and often seen as more different.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  The category means driver in the occupation sense of the word, not just being someone who drives a car. If you think it isn't obvious, though, I can support renaming the parent category to Category:Fictional professional drivers. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:39, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  That would also affect Category:Drivers by vehicle type. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:55, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Target proposed for renaming at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_July_17#Category:Drivers_by_vehicle_type. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:39, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Category:Fictional professional drivers given the above course of action. Οἶδα (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

September 22

Category:Rediscovered video games

• Propose merging Category:Rediscovered video games to Category:Rediscovered works and Category:Lost video games

Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT with insufficient relevant articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:57, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge, per nom. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 14:36, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Taghdtaighde (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
• merge per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:04, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to Category:Rediscovered works only, the other is for lost media that haven't been rediscovered yet. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:43, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: thoughts on LaundryPizza's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• I think that's a dispute that can be held on the talkpage after it's merged, as it would affect virtually nothing. I personally think it makes sense though. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:18, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:2024 Spikers' Turf season

• Propose renaming Category:2024 Spikers' Turf season to Category:2024–25 Spikers' Turf season

Nominator's rationale: The league has shifted to a two-year season format with the parent article being 2024–25 Spikers' Turf season Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:2026 Spikers' Turf season

• Propose renaming Category:2026 Spikers' Turf season to Category:2026–27 Spikers' Turf season

Nominator's rationale: The (10th) season starts with the 2026 Spikers' Turf Invitational Conference. The league has shifted to a two-year format 2026–27 Spikers' Turf season Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:57, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:2025 Spikers' Turf season

• Propose renaming Category:2025 Spikers' Turf season to Category:2025–26 Spikers' Turf season

Nominator's rationale: The season later included the 2026 Spikers' Turf Open Conference as the second tournament following the 2025 Spikers' Turf Invitational Conference. The league has shifted to a two-year format 2025–26 Spikers' Turf season Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Fiction set on Iapetus (moon)

• Propose merging Category:Fiction set on Iapetus (moon) to Category:Iapetus (moon) and Category:Fiction set on Saturn's moons

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Merge Category:Novels set on Iapetus (moon) to the nominated category (or to the proposed targets in the nomination) and I propose also creating Category:Novels set on Saturn's moons. As I have repeatedly explained at similar CfDs, it is illogical to upmerge a broader parent of a narrower subcategory that is not necessarily equivalent, even if no existing articles could be placed in the parent but not the subcategory. Regardless of outcome, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_July_16#Category:Novels_set_on_Mimas will need to be closed in the same manner as this CfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:35, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Therianthropy

• Propose merging Category:Therianthropy to Category:Shapeshifting
• Propose merging Category:Therianthropes to Category:Shapeshifters
• Propose merging Category:Fictional therianthropes to Category:Fictional shapeshifters
• Propose merging Category:Fiction about therianthropy to Category:Fiction about shapeshifting

Nominator's rationale: "Therianthropy" is a neologism and doesn't have a primary topic. The category in itself was made by a blocked user and has a lot of loosely related entries. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:35, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Procedural comment, I presume that Category:Fiction about therianthropy should also be part of the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, whoops, I added that too, thanks for pointing it out. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:27, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merge shapeshifter is clearly the common name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:44, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge the first and last, but rename the second and third categories to Category:Shapeshifters between human and animal forms and Category:Fictional shapeshifters between human and animal forms, since this a common and well-defined type of shapeshifting. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:47, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  Not all category members are human or become human. And "shapeshifters between something and animal forms" would be bad, while "animal shapeshifters" would be wrong. You also haven't given proof that this is a well-defined form of shapeshifting outside of very specific sorts such as lycanthropy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:13, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should categories 2 and 3 be renamed?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, toby ^(t)(rw) 06:21, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps what is needed is a Shapeshifting humanoids category or Shapeshifting monsters with appropriate fictional counterparts. I'm not sure if there are enough entries from animal to human for a category, but seems like diffusing by categorizing by their original state could help reveal any underlying category structure. WinstonDewey (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Can't do that, it is not always clear which form is the "default". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:19, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

While that's true, it seems there would be sufficient entries to have a Human shapeshifters or Shapeshiftting humans category, the other two yes may be tougher though it depends on the case. WinstonDewey (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merge per above. -- Just N. (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I think just dhspe shifters is enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Friendslop video games

• Propose deleting Category:Friendslop video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. "Friendslop" is often used pejoratively and as a quality judgement by the commentor. ~ A412 ^talk! 14:41, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - it is sub-genre of games. It previously used as a insult but it seems that it becomes a legitimate genre see: “ The latest entry in the wonderful genre of friendslop”, this gamerant article describe it as a “new genre” “genreless genre”, ゲームジャンル (Game Genre) and base on the article for friendslop, it is a cited genre for this types of games.

Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 15:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete same reason as sliviaASH (the vtuber) ThatAustralianBall (talk) 05:19, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep It is a genre, as seen in friendslop. We don't delete Category:Walking simulators just because the name originated as a pejorative. That would fall under WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Many people speak of "slop" in a positive light, liking the "brainless fun" aspect of entertainment, even as others criticize it for the exact same reason. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:49, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
• For god's sakes, people, not this crap again. This is not a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, and if the "Spiritual successor" discussion taught me anything, it's that the people in these category subpages don't know what words and phrases mean and act as if they do. The gaming journalists we prioritize don't use it as a "quality judgement by the commentor" ever; I have absolutely no clue where butthole they pulled that out from. GameSpot, Gamereactor, Kotaku, Polygon, PC Gamer and other reputable sources in gaming recognize this as a legitimate genre with a consistent definition like other genres, such as platform and first-person shooters, and refer to games in that manner. It's a very new genre to learn, sure, but users should know better than to not do their homework before nominating anything for deletion like this. HUMANXANTHRO (Given the same state of integrity) 17:18, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I'll stealman, though. This is a very new term as not as commonly used as other genres, as indicated by the fact that articles for some of the "Notable examples" on the article (Lethal Company, Content Warning, Webfishing, Guilty as Sock!, even Peak) don't currently have the main genre marked as "Friendslop". HUMANXANTHRO (Given the same state of integrity) 15:50, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete This is a very small category which is not worth keeping around and will only add to category clutter on pages, hindering navigation. Further, "Friendslop" is a netspeak neologism with no commonly agreed upon definition and no clear criteria for inclusion. I thus agree with the nominator that it is too subjective for a category. I'd also argue the article about it is pretty questionable and needs to be either drastically rewritten or merged somewhere, but that's a topic for another day. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:53, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Either you're not reading the room, or you're talking about something else. This isn't about the "netspeak neologism" itself. This is about games under the genre, which does have an agreed-upon definition: "Friendslop is a subgenre of cooperative video game that focus on a low barrier of entry and social interaction." See? Now name me one reputable source that disagrees with that definition. HUMANXANTHRO (Given the same state of integrity) 22:49, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

    All the sources are from the past few years (post-2024 ish), and there's no clear definition of the term that clarifies how this supposed genre is different from multiplayer games generally ("game cheap that I can play with my friends easily" also describes Overwatch, CSGO, Don't Starve Together, Minecraft, and basically any other low-cost or free-to-play multiplayer game). The "Reception" section of the article is clear about this:

    Jay Costello of Aftermath claimed that friendslop was not a real genre, saying that the term had never been used genuinely and that people were only angry at the supposed people who used it, and stating that using it would mean hating "whimsy and joy" as well as one's friends. However, some developers have embraced the label to describe their games. Paige Wilson, community lead at Aggro Crab, said that the team had loved the term from the moment it was first introduced, and praising the term for bringing new excitement to co-op games. The studio Panic Stations! have also advertised their games as "friendslop," though clarifying that people should only call it that if they wanted to.

    It's not agreed that this is a real genre, and I don't think it is. People are just calling whatever game they play with their friends "friendslop" in the same way someone might say a particular meal is comfort food, or a film they like is a "popcorn movie", or whatever. But we don't have Category:Comfort food or Category:Popcorn movies, and at least those terms have been shown to have lasting significance. In contrast, the usage of the term "friendslop" is, at least as of this moment, just a fad.

    If, hypothetically, this term sees long term significance, I could see the article about the term and its usage being retained usefully. However, I'd personally bet on the neologism falling out of favor after a few years, and in that case I might nominate it to be merged to Glossary of video game terms. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:51, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

    I implore you to read the Aftermath article in full and more closely. The article was about the general divisiveness of social media platforms, not the legitimacy of friendslop. It simply brought up users' discourse around the word as a major example, and by the genre not being "real", the author meant that it wasn't a real issue to get so heated about as if it was as serious as our current socio-politcal climate. We do not WP:WEIGHT based on the ramblings of your average fart on Elon's X.com platform. In fact, the article ends with a promotion to not really take a side on the social media discourse: "Even though platforms hook us in with the dopamine of easy outrage, taking a step back to double check whether something is entirely shadowboxing is still an option. So is just kicking back and enjoying a game of Peak with your friends." HUMANXANTHRO (Given the same state of integrity) 14:00, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

    No, there is definitely a clear definition of how it differs from standard multiplayer games. I understand you want to save face, but the sources are quite obvious and right there. Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C, I can go on. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:39, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

    I read each of these articles, and I don't agree. None of these articles have workable definitions, and what little they do offer basically boils down to "vibes", akin to calling certain games "cozy games". The AV Club article even acknowledges this, as it says: Every small-scale co-op game released after Lethal Company, including Peak, is dubbed friendslop, regardless of quality or resemblance.

    Even if we are to grant that these are a genre, it's still a fact that this "genre" is still as yet only a trend. It's as yet unclear whether or not this trend will become more than that, and be significant enough to be worthy of such dedicated coverage on the encyclopedia. silviaASH (inquire within) 05:00, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

    This category is for games that have been called friendslop by reliable sources, not based on Wikipedia editor vibes. You are welcome to purge ones that have never had the friendslop definition applied, but it's not our job to judge how well defined the genre is, just report on it. Verifiability is more important than the "truth" of what "friendslop" means. Mostly, we know that people are calling games a certain genre en masse, and it has a reasonable definition of "cheap, low-budget co-op game with low challenge that is made for hanging out".

    In any case, I don't wish to argue about it any longer, so we'll see what others think I guess. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:28, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

    Ahem:

    GameSpot: "It’s an increasingly useful tongue-in-cheek term to describe a particular genreless genre: games you can pick up on the cheap, jump into without much preamble or complex tutorials, and really get bang for your buck when playing with friends near and far."

    Kotaku: "The friendslop formula, known for things like comical co-op gameplay and proximity chat,"

    Kotaku again: "games in which the co-op mechanics encourage goofing around with others."

    Polygon: "Goofy co-op games, which are now endearingly referred to as "friendslop,"]

    Polygon again: cheap, comedic, and crude multiplayer games

    There's some, uh, overarching aspects between these, you know? HUMANXANTHRO (Given the same state of integrity) 14:20, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

    There were plenty of games produced before that which met that description. This is a big issue with the gaming press of pretty thoughtlessly jumping on a bandwagon of calling a particular category of game a particular trending name (to chase clicks, really), which editors of video game content on Wikipedia are often not careful enough to avoid replicating. Even if these notions might ultimately calcify into a recognizable distinct genre, it's really just way WP:TOOSOON to give it a whole category. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:31, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

    You're only speculating, without definite proof, that these WP:VG/RS, including GameSpot and Polygon, are doing that for this one. And even if they were "chasing clicks", and the genre ends up being a short-lived fad, so what? A genre that was a flash-in-the-pan is still a genre, and it's real; reliable sources we establish notability based off of generally don't hop on subjects that didn't happen, even when trying to increase their reader and subscriber base. HUMANXANTHRO (Given the same state of integrity) 15:18, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

    I'll give you, though, that not many games have been categorized under the genre, and it is a pretty small category so far. But if category pages of artists with only a few albums are any indication, this seems to be allowed on here. HUMANXANTHRO (Given the same state of integrity) 16:05, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

    I also should add that the AV Club piece is about how gamers and terminally-online forum participants in general overuse the term, much like how most online users overuse loaded political jargon like "fascist" and "communist" even when the people they are insulting aren't, hence the quote, and that not every co-op game post-Lethal Company was of that genre. And he does express disagreement towards Peak being considered under the category. But games and media in general are categorized as different genres by different people all the time (e.g. Death Grips' many genre markers). HUMANXANTHRO (Given the same state of integrity) 15:44, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per SilviaASH. No broad established usage for this genre term demonstrating it to be anything more than a transient label used within games journalism. Not every new genre slang term is automatically worthy of categorization on Wikipedia. I'm also not convinced that this term has yet reached the level of being uncontroversial (read: neutral) under WP:CAT#N whilst also being "slightly derogatory". This should be left as a list in the mainspace article and revisited in the future if and when appropriate. Until then, it is indeed WP:TOOSOON. Οἶδα (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, toby ^(t)(rw) 19:49, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep It has significant coverage in WP:RS and many examples are blue links. It is also a more frequently searched term than "walking simulator". TPI81AF (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete This is a term that lacks clear definitions that distingish it from similar terms. It leads to category clutter and ought to be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  Makes no sense to delete this category for supposed non-definingness while there is a main article literally defining it and backing it up with numerous sources. If you truly believe that, deleting the category would be putting the cart before the horse. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:23, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, often enough used by reliable sources to be a useful descriptive characteristic of games. Fram (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Tamarixia

• Propose merging Category:Tamarixia to Category:Eulophidae

Nominator's rationale: Category is too small, merge up to parent. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support, in 9 years only 2 articles. Merge to parent. Gjs238 (talk)

Category:Plays by Stanisława Przybyszewska

• Propose deleting Category:Plays by Stanisława Przybyszewska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT, 1-article category Gjs238 (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Category:Plays by Polish writers and Category:Literature by Polish women, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge one article categories actively hinder navigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Plays by Polish writers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Propose deleting Category:Plays by Polish writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT, 1-article category, Gjs238 (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, now 5 subcats. Fram (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Fram. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Withdraw nomination, thank you for populating. Gjs238 (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Semiticists

• Propose renaming Category:Semiticists to Category:Semitists

Nominator's rationale: Semitists is the standard and most common word designating these scholars in English. See also on Ngram. The word Semitist is formed like Hebraist and Arabist (for which we have Category:Hebraists and Category:Arabists). Auteuil-Passy (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Aramaicists

• Propose renaming Category:Aramaicists to Category:Aramaists

Nominator's rationale: Aramaists is the standard and most common word designating these scholars in English. See also on Ngram. The word Aramaist is formed like Hebraist and Arabist (for which we have Category:Hebraists and Category:Arabists). Auteuil-Passy (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Hypothetical planetary systems

• Propose renaming Category:Hypothetical planetary systems to Category:Unconfirmed planetary systems

Nominator's rationale: Alternate title: Category:Candidate planetary systems

The word "hypothetical" implies that these systems don't have much (or any) evidence for their existence, but most of them do. They just don't have enough evidence to fully confirm them as planetary systems. Shocksingularity (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Rename to Category:Candidate planetary systems, individual astronomical objects can't be hypothetical. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:29, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 05:34, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Rename somehow, per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Historic New England

• Propose renaming Category:Historic New England to Category:Sites of Historic New England

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, this is a set category of historic sites. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 05:34, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 17:41, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. I couldn't find other "sites of" categories that this would be consistent with. Currently the category is entirely composed of "House" articles, with the only exception being Merrell Tavern. So maybe Houses of Historic New England? But the main article says it owns a mix of houses, museums, farmland and Plum Island Airport. So maybe Buildings and structures of Historic New England instead? Οἶδα (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• @Οἶδα: with the proposed name it will become a proper subcategory in the tree of Category:Historic sites. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

  I offered that because this is moreso a "buildings by company/org i.e. owner" cat and it was consistent with a cat like Category:Buildings and structures of the Catholic Church. Though there's other formats at Category:Buildings and structures by organization. And that seemed to convey the company name more clearly so that it can't be confused with a Historic sites in New England cat. But it's not too important. If Sites of Historic New England works then that is fine by me. I considered the more accurate Historic sites of Historic New England but that isn't great sounding and Historic New England historic sites is even worse. Οἶδα (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Male in electronic music

• Propose deleting Category:Male in electronic music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Male in electronic music by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Italian male in electronic music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unilaterally created by a single user. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 03:59, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Unilaterally created by a single user
This is a valid reason to delete an cat? VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 04:06, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

No, it is not. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:21, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 23:19, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:EGRS, men in eletronic music is not a notable topic. If kept, rename to "men". Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  Men in eletronic music is notable, not just Italian men. See e.g this song by Gazebo, which is popular in my country (Brazil), this, and this. I agree only to rename to "Men" VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 16:26, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep (but rename per Marcocapelle) as the parallel cat to the existing Category:Women in electronic music. As said above, "unilaterally created by a single user" is a completely invalid deletion reason. Fram (talk) 07:58, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Strong keep Per Fram. --VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 16:28, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per Marcocapelle. Often women can be a notable intersection for something men aren't notable for, and result in WP:RGW efforts to create "balance". No evidence has been provided that the grouping of male electronic musicians are independently notable, in contrast to the corresponding List of female electronic musicians. The response by Vitor is basically irrelevant as it's only talking about the popularity of one artist and hearsay. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:38, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

  Gender is an often discussed topic wrt electronic music (and many other things). Things like [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ADOnV0z8XM

  What is the problem with electronic music being male dominated?] (youtube, but from a reliable source), and women in electronic music really aren't that rare (“I Wanna Dance to Me”: How women are dominating electronic music in 2024). Notability isn't a category requirement (though it often is an additional good argument to keep one), categories are often created for easier discoverability, and balanced trees are often useuful in that regard. Having "electronic musicians" and "women electronic musicians" as the two main categories is just weird. Even in sports, people have in many cases stepped away from the sports/women's sports divisions and changed it to men's sports/women's sports divisions. I see no good reason to not do the same here. Fram (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

  Both women and men is notable in electronic musics, including transgender and non-binary VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 02:37, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  See Lena Raine for example, she is trans. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 02:38, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - We shall not WP:RGW. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  Have you actually read WP:RGW? Categorizing people as male or female electronic musicians, rock musicians, folk musicians, ... is not really what RGW is about at all. We have countless subcats of Category:Male musicians and Category:Women musicians already, but for some reason (apparently because it was "Unilaterally created by a single user.") this one is not acceptable. Fram (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with you VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 20:01, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Racing drivers with diabetes

• Propose deleting Category:Racing drivers with diabetes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: NARROWCAT. I know there are nine entries and it could be worse, but this has to be a complete coincidence, right? Unless some racecar expert wants to tell me that there's something statistically anomalous and notable about this, I have doubts about its propriety. And I did do my due diligence to see if anything came up about that, but I didn't see it. No need to merge as all entries are in other racing drivers subcats. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:10, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, sportspeople with diabetes is a typical topic of interest. See e.g. thisthisthisthisthisthisthisthisthisthis or this. Not sure "where" or "how" you did your due diligence, but this is just a sample of what Google News returned. I could also have used Google Books instead, with books like Winning with Diabetes: Inspiring Stories from Athletes. The intersection of their sport with their diabetes is a defining characteristic, as evidenced by the many sources about it. Fram (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Diabetic racing drivers, but keep. I am most heavily swayed by the NY Times article and feel there is potential for a Diabetes and professional racing article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:42, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Category:People with diabetes does not exist. It was deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 6#Category:People with diabetes. Also Category:People with type 2 diabetes was deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 12#Category:People with type 2 diabetes. But Category:People with type 1 diabetes was not deleted after this discussion had 'no consensus' Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 13#Category:People with type 1 diabetes. Thoughts? Οἶδα (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

  It's possible to argue that a general listing of people with diabetes is not defining, but that drivers who drive with diabetes is defining. I would go on the side of it not being defining simply in general due to how common it is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:35, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

  I'm saying there would be no logical parent cat because the name does not exclude it to type 1. But all of the articles here are, unsurprisingly, type 1 diabetics. So the answer would be, if kept, to diffuse Category:People with type 1 diabetes to Category:Sportspeople with type 1 diabetes, and rename Category:Racing drivers with diabetes to Category:Racing drivers with type 1 diabetes and make it a subcat of the the diffused sportspeople cat. Οἶδα (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

September 21

Category:Mass killings by ideology

• Propose merging Category:Mass killings by ideology to Category:Mass murders

Nominator's rationale: Seems like a WP:NARROWCAT unnecessary category layer, and that's not even getting into the issue of whether a regime is purely an "ideology". A rename of this failed, but I simply think it ought to be merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:35, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Just delete. Not all mass killings are mass murder - mass murder is the act of some individuals killing many people at once, or a small group. It is not the same as state-backed mass killings, a la My Lai. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Then it better be renamed to Category:Mass killings and Category:Mass murder be made a subcategory of it. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:32, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Supreme soviets of the union republics of the Soviet Union

• Propose renaming Category:Supreme soviets of the union republics of the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Supreme Soviets of the union republics of the Soviet Union
• Propose renaming Category:Members of the Supreme soviets of the union republics of the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Members of the Supreme Soviets of the union republics of the Soviet Union

Nominator's rationale: All members are spelt as "Supreme Soviet of...". The capitalisation of the second category, with "Supreme" capitalised but not "soviets", is particularly strange. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:52, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Rename for consistency with subcategory names and article titles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Cameroonian expatriate sportspeople in Guadeloupe

• Propose merging Category:Cameroonian expatriate sportspeople in Guadeloupe to Category:Cameroonian expatriate sportspeople in France

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge as too narrow. Also since Guadaloupe is a deparment of France this is no more justified than Category:Cameroonian expatriate sportspeople in Hawaii would be as a sub-cat of Category:Cameroonian expatriate sportspeople in the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge, this is not helpful for navigation. Note that the article stays in the Guadeloupe tree anyway, namely in Category:Expatriate men's footballers in Guadeloupe. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• What should be done with Category:Cameroonian expatriates in Guadeloupe? jlwoodwa (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Argentine expatriate sportspeople in Guadeloupe

• Propose deleting Category:Argentine expatriate sportspeople in Guadeloupe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Jamaican expatriate sportspeople in Guadeloupe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry which is already in Category:Expatriate men's footballers in Guadeloupe, Category:Argentine expatriate sportspeople in France; and Category:Expatriate men's footballers in Guadeloupe , Category:Jamaican expatriate sportspeople in France respectively. LibStar (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete although since Guadaloupe is a department of France, should we have the footballers cat even. Do we havd Category:Expatriates in Hawaii? No. Hawaii is more autonomous from the US than Guadaloupe is from France, since French departments are less autonomous than US states.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Mass media in Beaumont, Texas

• Propose renaming Category:Mass media in Beaumont, Texas to Category:Mass media in the Beaumont–Port Arthur metropolitan area

Nominator's rationale: Some stations licensed to Port Arthur or Orange Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose There's plenty of Beaumont specific non-broadcast content here including Starday Records, Lamar University Press, The Examiner (Beaumont), and the Cabell Publishing. Also, the nomination is mistaken: not a single radio station in this category is licensed to any city except Beaumont. (No objection to boldly creating a parent metro category though.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Rename it is not just a licensing issue. Many statioms licensed to acity oprrate outside its limits. Mass media should be fully organized by metro area and not by city at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Television stations in Beaumont, Texas

• Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Beaumont, Texas to Category:Television stations in the Beaumont–Port Arthur metropolitan area

Nominator's rationale: At least one station licensed to Port Arthur Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Neutral The only station with an article outside of Beaumont is KITU-TV in Orange so the scope of either would be almost the same. (If the current name is retained, KITU should be purged.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:50, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support because if broadcast range issues, amd also movemrnt of studios, to cover broadcast media on a city level is silly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

September 20

Category:Scientific organisations based in Beijing

• Propose merging Category:Scientific organisations based in Beijing to Category:Organizations based in Beijing

Nominator's rationale: redundant category layer, upmerge for now ^SMason_Garrison 23:33, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge per nom, but Category:China Geological Survey should also be added under Category:Scientific organisations based in China. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Russian politicians of Assyrian descent

• Propose deleting Category:Russian politicians of Assyrian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Exact same rationale as when I brought "Swiss politicians of Assyrian descent" to CfD. There are presently no other biographies that fit in this category, and the one that does is already part of the bigger category of "Russian people of Assyrian descent". PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, this is not helpful for navigation. The article is already in Category:Russian people of Assyrian descent so no need to merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Pages using Rfc top or Rfc bottom with rfcid parameter

• Propose deleting Category:Pages using Rfc top or Rfc bottom with rfcid parameter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Now that Legobot has been fixed with https://github.com/legoktm/harej-bots/commit/7b17f842ee60e8c78d97d3c1687b22a295cbff27, this category should no longer need to exist. GTrang (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nominator's rationale. See Template talk:Rfc top#Proposed bot fix. FaviFake (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep unless and until you can conclusively prove that Legobot is fixed. I am fed up with people making unproven assumptions that I then have to clean up after. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Redrose64 You might want to update your !vote since you have now confirmed that the bot works.

  Alright, it didn't touch the {{rfc top}}/{{rfc bottom}} here, so it may be fixed. But I do think that the testing should have been done before the page moves occurred.
  — User:Redrose64 21:46, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  FaviFake (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

12th- and 13th-century disestablishments in England

• Propose merging Category:1177 disestablishments in England to Category: 1170s disestablishments in England and Category:1177 in England and Category:1177 disestablishments in Europe (1)
• Propose merging Category:1265 disestablishments in England to Category: 1260s disestablishments in England and Category:1265 in England and Category:1265 disestablishments in Europe (1)
• Propose merging Category:1290 disestablishments in England to Category: 1290s disestablishments in England and Category:1290 in England and Category:1290 disestablishments in Europe (2)

Nominator's rationale: Sparsely populated categories per WP:OCYEAR. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 01:32, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. / RemoveRedSky ^[talk] 00:32, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

11th-century establishments in England

• Propose merging Category:1080 establishments in England to Category:1080s establishments in England and Category:1080 in England and Category:1080 establishments in Europe (2)
• Propose merging Category:1081 establishments in England to Category:1080s establishments in England and Category:1081 in England and Category:1081 establishments in Europe (1)
• Propose merging Category:1082 establishments in England to Category:1080s establishments in England and Category:1082 in England and Category:1082 establishments in Europe (2)
• Propose merging Category:1083 establishments in England to Category: 1080s establishments in England and Category:1083 in England and Category:1083 establishments in Europe (3)
• Propose merging Category:1085 establishments in England to Category: 1080s establishments in England and Category:1085 in England and Category:1085 establishments in Europe (2)
• Propose merging Category:1086 establishments in England to Category: 1080s establishments in England and Category:1086 in England and Category:1086 establishments in Europe (4)
• Propose merging Category:1087 establishments in England to Category: 1080s establishments in England and Category:1087 in England and Category:1087 establishments in Europe (3)
• Propose merging Category:1088 establishments in England to Category: 1080s establishments in England and Category:1088 in England and Category:1088 establishments in Europe (1)
• Propose merging Category:1089 establishments in England to Category: 1080s establishments in England and Category:1089 in England and Category:1089 establishments in Europe (1)
• Propose merging Category:1090 establishments in England to Category: 1090s establishments in England and Category:1090 in England and Category:1090 establishments in Europe (3)
• Propose merging Category:1091 establishments in England to Category: 1090s establishments in England and Category:1091 in England and Category:1091 establishments in Europe (1)
• Propose merging Category:1092 establishments in England to Category: 1090s establishments in England and Category:1092 in England and Category:1092 establishments in Europe (5)
• Propose merging Category:1093 establishments in England to Category: 1090s establishments in England and Category:1093 in England and Category:1093 establishments in Europe (2)
• Propose merging Category:1094 establishments in England to Category: 1090s establishments in England and Category:1094 in England and Category:1094 establishments in Europe (1)
• Propose merging Category:1096 establishments in England to Category: 1090s establishments in England and Category:1096 in England and Category:1096 establishments in Europe (1)
• Propose merging Category:1097 establishments in England to Category: 1090s establishments in England and Category:1097 in England and Category:1097 establishments in Europe (4)

Nominator's rationale: Sparsely populated categories per WP:OCYEAR. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 01:16, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge, this is not helpful for navigation. Consistent with other 11th-century nominations. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. / RemoveRedSky ^[talk] 00:33, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

12th-, 13th-, and 14th-century establishments in Wales

• Propose merging Category:1116 establishments in Wales to Category:1110s establishments in Wales and Category:1116 in Wales and Category:1116 establishments in Europe (1 page)
• Propose merging Category:1120 establishments in Wales to Category:1120s establishments in Wales and Category:1120 in Wales and Category:1120 establishments in Europe (1)
• Propose merging Category:1131 establishments in Wales to Category:1130s establishments in Wales and Category:1131 in Wales and Category:1131 establishments in Europe (1)
• Propose merging Category:1132 establishments in Wales to Category:1130s establishments in Wales and Category:1132 in Wales and Category:1132 establishments in Europe (1)
• Propose merging Category:1282 establishments in Wales to Category:1280s establishments in Wales and Category:1282 in Wales and Category:1282 establishments in Europe (1)
• Propose merging Category:1322 establishments in Wales to Category:1320s establishments in Wales and Category:1322 in Wales and Category:1322 establishments in Europe (1)

Nominator's rationale: Sparsely populated categories per WP:OCYEAR. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 00:48, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. / RemoveRedSky ^[talk] 00:33, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

September 19

Category:Sculptures by Andrew Edwards

• • Propose renaming Category:Sculptures by Andrew Edwards to Category:Sculptures by Andy Edwards

Nominator's rationale: The category should be in agreement with the naming of the sculptor, Andy Edwards (sculptor). I am very sorry, when I created the new category I did this mistake, that can be now fixed.Mistico Dois (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 00:37, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Sculptures by Andy Edwards (sculptor). If an article nane has a disambigustor we should use that disambiguator in every category name that is referring to the subject of the article. When article names are used in category names we should folloe exactly what rhe article name is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment I thought the same, but if you take a look at the category for the painter Samuel Scott (painter), it is Category:Paintings by Samuel Scott. Its also the same for the much more famous painter Francis Bacon (artist), Category:Paintings by Francis Bacon.Mistico Dois (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Those should also bs renamed to match the article names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Rename either way, it is obvious that Andrew should be changed to Andy. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:The JaneDear girls albums

• Propose deleting Category:The JaneDear girls albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category only has one article and is unlikely to be usable since the JaneDear Girls never released any other albums. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 23:23, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Alternative merge to Category:Country albums by American artists so that the page contained in the category can still be found through the category tree. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 00:36, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  Zero objection to that. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 01:57, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, it has long been established (and is useful) that Category:Albums by artist, just like other simlar creative cats, is a fully populated category ranging from 1 to hundreds of entries. Dropping all 1-album bands together in a massive heap would not aid navigation at all. Fram (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep (for now). Reposting what I said at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_June_23#Category:Books by Levon Helm: This is the same story as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_March_30#Category:"Country"_Johnny_Mathis_songs and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_May_10#Category:Films_directed_by_Faye_Dunaway. As I stated at the latter: We need a broader consensus on these Works by creator subcategories post-WT:SMALLCAT, which did not produce a consensus about the former Works by creator exception that existed at WP:SMALLCAT. Check out just how many 1-article categories we have to deal with at Albums by artist. Are we going to develop anything approaching "consistency" by voting on this singular category here? I think not. Οἶδα (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

1860s disestablishments in Indian Territory

• Propose merging Category:1865 disestablishments in Indian Territory to Category:1865 in Indian Territory and Category:1865 disestablishments in the United States and Category:1860s disestablishments in Indian Territory (2 pages)
• Propose merging Category:1869 disestablishments in Indian Territory to Category:1869 in Indian Territory and Category:1869 disestablishments in the United States and Category:1860s disestablishments in Indian Territory (1)

Nominator's rationale: Sparsely populated categories per WP:OCYEAR. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 23:20, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Molds used in food production

• Propose merging Category:Molds used in food production to Category:Fungi in cultivation

Nominator's rationale: They overlap substantially. While there are small differences between the two ('mold' is a subset of 'fungi', for example), until these categories grow, these distinction aren't necessary. Hirsutism (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 21:12, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
• Question, shouldn't it be merged to Category:Edible fungi, since that is the parent category, instead of to Category:Fungi in cultivation? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Kostars albums

• Propose deleting Category:Kostars albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I propose deleting this category as it has one entry, the band is dissolved and one of the two members passed away, so the likelihood of a second album is very low Emcgonigle (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Alternative merge to Category:Electronic rock albums by American artists, Category:Ambient pop albums, Category:Pop rock albums by American artists, and Category:Ambient albums by American artists. Rather outright deleting it, we could simply merge it into the aforementioned categories so that the singular page can still be easily found within the category tree. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 21:25, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, the albums by artist tree is a full tree from 1 album to 100s of albums, and dumping all one-band artists together into one giant heap would not be heplful (neither would removing them from the tree). The alternative merge is worse: a category like "Category:Ambient pop albums" should rarely if ever contain subcats, but should contain individual albums, as the genre is album-dependent, not artist-dependent. These cats should be removed from the nominated cat and moved to the album level instead. Fram (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep (for now). Reposting what I said at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_June_23#Category:Books by Levon Helm: This is the same story as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_March_30#Category:"Country"_Johnny_Mathis_songs and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_May_10#Category:Films_directed_by_Faye_Dunaway. As I stated at the latter: We need a broader consensus on these Works by creator subcategories post-WT:SMALLCAT, which did not produce a consensus about the former Works by creator exception that existed at WP:SMALLCAT. Check out just how many 1-article categories we have to deal with at Albums by artist. Are we going to develop anything approaching "consistency" by voting on this singular category here? I think not. Οἶδα (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Fictional characters with plant abilities

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters with plant abilities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Suffers from WP:ARBITRARYCAT and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT issues due to the vague nature of this category. It can include plant characters with control over themselves or non-plant characters with control over plants. No indication being a "chlorokinetic" is defining for most characters. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:19, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - Clearly a defining attribute for characters such as Poison Ivy (character), Amaterasu (Ōkami), and Rose and Thorn, among others. Really just needs some (I can't believe I am saying this here) pruning. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Fictional characters who can control animals

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters who can control animals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Suffers from issues of WP:SUBJECTIVECAT as to what actually counts as animal control. Is someone who is an expert horse rider an "animal controller"? Is someone who sends a single "you must help us!" and the animal decides to come running of its own accord an "animal controller"? Also has WP:NONDEF issues. In my opinion it should be deleted, any relevant characters who do full mind control can be merged to Category:Fictional mind controllers. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:10, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep - Several clear cut cases of WP:DEFINING here such as Ant-Man and Aquaman. Stuff like horse riding obviously does not fit the category. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Quadrophonic albums

• Propose deleting Category:Quadrophonic albums.

Nominator's rationale: Misspelled category needs to be deleted. I remade the category as Category:Quadraphonic albums, correctly spelled. Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment This is an empty category. You could have tagged it CSD C1. Wait, why did you start this discussion and then empty the category out of process? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:54, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Because I didn't want to wait out the process. Binksternet (talk) 02:28, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• This is an out-of-process rename. Articles shoulx be moved back so that proper renaming can take place. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

   Done Οἶδα (talk) 04:37, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Rename to Category:Quadraphonic albums per the above. Οἶδα (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Curacao Neptunus players

• Propose merging Category:Curacao Neptunus players to Category:Neptunus players

Nominator's rationale: Removing sponsor from team name, in line with page for team page, Neptunus HonkBase (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:DOOR Neptunus players

• Propose merging Category:DOOR Neptunus players to Category:Neptunus players

Nominator's rationale: Removing FORMER sponsor of team name, again, in line with Neptunus. Note: there are a few other merges/name changes for Category:Honkbal Hoofdklasse players by team subcategories that I think would be beneficial for similar reasons HonkBase (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Interbank networks in Bangladesh

• Propose merging Category:Interbank networks in Bangladesh to Category:Interbank networks

Nominator's rationale: Not useful with a single entry. (The category is also not even categorised into any Bangladesh-related categories.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 04:25, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose : Added two more entry and category Banking in Bangladesh added. Greatder (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support per nom, noting Greatder's efforts. A three-pager category is still too small to aid in navigation. However, I do support merging this category to Category:Banking in Bangladesh as well now. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 21:35, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Åland society

• Propose renaming Category:Åland society to Category:Languages of Åland

Nominator's rationale: The language-related articles can be moved to a language category within Category:Culture of Åland and Category:Languages of Finland, if not just merged into Culture of Åland entirely, while Ålänningens sång (the only article in this category not related to languages) can be moved into culture as well. Unless there are more articles that need to go into Åland society that I don't know about. Arctic Circle System (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Category:Culture of Åland, it concerns two languages only, Swedish and Finnish, which are the same languages as in mainland Finland. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per Marcocapelle. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 21:36, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per Marcocapelle.Mistico Dois (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

September 18

Category:Categories in category theory

• Propose renaming Category:Categories in category theory to Category:Categories (category theory)

Nominator's rationale: The main article is called Category (mathematics); however, in the CfD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 March 24 the suggestion of Category:Categories (mathematics) was opposed for not making it clear enough that the category is supposed to be a set category and not a topic category (which is the parent Category:Category theory). I think specifying "(category theory)" instead of "(mathematics)" makes it more apparent that the category is not for all topics related to category theory in general, while also maintaining consistency with Category:Objects (category theory) (there is also Category:Limits (category theory)). In addition, the previous CfD suggested that "in category theory" is somewhat inaccurate since many categories occur outside of pure category theory, with the suggested alternative being "Category-theoretic categories". "Categories (category theory)" seems to achieve the same goal with a more standard pattern of disambiguation. 1234qwer1234qwer4 09:58, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is no meaningful distinction between "Categories (mathematics)" and "Categories (category theory)": the disambiguator is more specific but does not otherwise disambiguate these two proposed category names, as the current names do. If we are to have different category names for the topic category and the set category (which I think is a good idea) we need them to have different names, not merely different but equivalent-in-meaning disambiguators. I have no strong opinion on what those different names should be but the status quo is better than the proposal.

—David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

If we are to have different category names for the topic category and the set category (which I think is a good idea) we need them to have different names, not merely different but equivalent-in-meaning disambiguators. – How would that be the case if the categories were called "Category theory" and "Categories (category theory)"? The latter seems to be reasonably clear about the fact that the category is not about all aspects of category theory (since that category would just be named "Category theory"). 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:18, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• I agree with David Eppstein that the proposed name does not solve the problem. Can't the topic articles that are now in this category simply be moved to parent Category:Category theory? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  Which articles do you suggest moving? I'm not sure your problem is the same as mine. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:19, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  • For example Super vector space. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

    I don't think that belongs in either of the categories, though the redirect Category of super vector spacesCategory of super vector spaces could be put in the category in which the article is currently. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:23, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GothicGolem29 (Talk) 22:33, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:People who have appeared on United States coins

• Propose deleting Category:People who have appeared on United States coins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:People who have appeared on United States paper money (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining trivia category per WP:CATDEF, WP:COPDEF and WP:TRIVIALCAT.. None of the people are notable because they appeared on currency, they appeared on currency because they are otherwise notable. Almost as trivial as, say Category:People who have been mentioned in books. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• ...this was just Kept in a CfD two months ago, way too early for a second nomination, at least I would think so (any guidelines on a nomination every two months?). And Keep per all of the reasons in the Keep ivotes at that July discussion. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Here's an essay on the topic that suggests to wait six months after a 'Keep' close: Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. I don't know how defining an essay would be to the nominator, but at least please read it and consider waiting a few more months, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I found no record of People who have appeared on United States coins being previously nominated or discussed, and in my view the "keep" arguments in the previous discussion for paper money largely ignored relevant guidelines (WP:DEFINING, WP:OVERCAT), rather asserted repeatedly that is defining without demonstrating such (plus the non-admin closer questionably determined three deletes and three keeps = keep). Spot checking some of the articles in both categories, quite a few fail to mention appearance on coins or currency at all (failing WP:CATV), let alone as an aspect for which someone is commonly and consistently discussed. Take for instance Gerald Ford, James K. Polk, Samuel Huntington (Connecticut politician), Anna Harrison, and Abraham Clark. Charles Thomson mentions (without citation) appearance on a 1975 post card, but not paper money. Sure, Duke Ellington and some others mention a commemorative coin in Legacy section, but Ellington also has a bridge named after him and we rightly don't have "Category:People who have bridges named after them. The mere fact that a person can be verifiably shown to have an aspect, even a very famous aspect, does not make it defining for categorization, hence we don't put Mark Hamill or anyone else in Category:People who were in Star Wars despite that being fundamental to his career and notability. Of course appearance on currency can be mentioned in articles if WP:DUE but should not be given disproportionate emphasis to appear defining. For niche facts of interest primarily to numismatists, adequately cited entries can go in appropriate lists like List of people on banknotes or List of people on coins or List of presidents of the United States on currency. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:34, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• It is not useful to have another discussion so soon. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete just as non-defining as it was in the previous discussion. Thank --Animalparty! for so clearly demonstrating it.--User:Namiba 17:43, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete catrgories are meant to bd defining to the person. The extreme case is Jean Baptiste Charboneau who appears basically as a prop in a picture as he is depicted as an infant being carried by his mother. This is sometging that can be covered in a list. This does not tell us something about the person, it is not defining to the subject of an article and not something we should have a category for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
• Pinging Wehwalt and Bungle491 from the last discussion, but this is really nominated way too early. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - Per Animalparty and John Pack Lambert, I don't really think that is necessarily suitable for category over a list. Beyond the WP:CATV and other policy concerns, yes, some of these people are defined somewhat by having a coin/money with them on it, but many aren't, not even a little. Something like Nobel laureates or Oscar winners gets a category, since every instance is significant and defining towards the individual as a whole. On the other hand, appearing on coins is something that doesn't even receive coverage in a lot of cases, making it less significant to the individual. I've been thinking about what would be a rigorous distinction for over an hour, and I've left some thoughts here.

result of some thoughts

Take this with a bucket of salt, since it's 2AM right now for me. I think a theoretical bar for whether an honor deserves a category is that it is 1. Rigorously selected 2. Widely (and I mean widely significant 3. Covered on each instance. Let's look at a few cases. Nobels pass, since they are rigorously selected by a committee, known worldwide, and get coverage for every time. Bridges fail 1, 2, and typically 3. US coins might get 1?, they might get 2?, but they typically fail 3 as seen in the above discussion.

thought process

Ignoring WP:CATV and other policy issues, the central question relevant to this discussion is "What makes being a Nobel laureate (something that does and should have a category) different from having a bridge named after you (something that shouldn't have a category)". After thinking about this for way too long (over an hour), I'm yet to arrive at a conclusion. I want to find some distinction that would definitively allow one to say: this category provides encyclopedic value since it passes this bar, but this other one doesn't. I'm definitely overthinking this. Some thoughts I've had: Getting awarded a Nobel prize is an award while getting a bridge named after you is a commemoration. Awards provide significant new information while commemorations don't. Here we define an commemoration as recognition given to someone for something they did in the past. But what really makes a commemoration different from an award? Are awards not also recognition given to someone who has done something significant, just in the recent past? Maybe it's because the Nobel has a rigorous selection process for a notable award. The rigorous condition allows us to differentiate it from small awards, local awards. Doesn't the US mint do one for coin/money commemoration too (legislation can also put people on money)? While the bridge is obviously less rigorous being local, a national mint deciding or legislation seem pretty rigorous. This probably fails the bar above of being a notable award though, since it doesn't really receive coverage. But then, consider a hypothetical: Instead of however coin images are currently determined, the same process is conducted but only once a year for a single person. Would coverage really distinguish it then, from the Nobel? At least my intuition tells me that while the current method for coins would fail necessity for a category, this hypothetical scenario might deserve one? No... maybe it is coverage. I think if the hypothetical received coverage, it would get a category, but without it would only get a list. Yeah, I think this is it.

Bungle491 (talk) 06:57, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Coins are studied and catalogued and mostly can be found in A Guide Book of United States Coins, which should mention in design descriptions most or all persons who have appeared on US coins. There are equivalent guides for US paper money, which might or might not list the c. 40 people who appear on the reverse of the present two-dollar bill but as the Treasury puts out a source on that ... basically any appearance on a US coin or note can be proven with RS. Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  It seems clear that descriptions of the coins would cover the people depicted on them, but do descriptions of the people regularly mention their being depicted on coins as a defining property? 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:24, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep Given the ongoing controversy about the Trump dollar, this is a category that might be actually ... useful. As could "Living people who have appeared on US coins/currency". And per the other reasons cited two months ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

First, the reasons cited two months ago did not address any categorization guidelines nor demonstrate the trait is a definining characteristic. Secondly, we don't make categories merely because people some people might find them useful or interesting, as we dont placate bridge enthusiasts by categorizing people who have bridges named for them. Lastly, and most importantly, not everything is about Trump. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Categories are supposed to be based on thimgs defining to thd individual. Things that are not defining to the individual, such as placement on stamps or coins, might be something worth including in a list if 8t can be properly sourced, but is not something that is worth categorizing individuals by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete If there was a lottery where Americans were randomly placed on currency, then this would be defining. But Thomas Jefferson wasn't picked at random to be on the nickel, he was already prominent so this recognition is WP:TRIVIALCAT. While this information is useful for a list article, it's not WP:DEFINING to each person honored, see WP:CLNT. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment The last discussion illustrates why this is a bunk category. The claim was made one person was notable for putting himself on coinage. He is instead notable for having been the head of the US government organization in charge of creating coinage. Another it was n8t mentioned in the aeticle. Why, because he was oart of "a famous group painting" included on coinage. Thd placement of him on the coin had nothing to do wirh him. He was in a painting rhat represented a theme that the makers of a coin wanted to include on coinage. Tgis is stuff not at all connected to why he was notable. We should not be categorizing by things that are not about notability or even what the person did in their life. This is nit a defining trait to the individuals so categirized.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

World record holders in the sport of athletics

• Propose merging Category:World record holders in the sport of athletics to Category:World Athletics record holders

Nominator's rationale: It seems to me that this is WP:OVERLAPCAT. Both of these categories target the same pages. North8364 (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that's true; not every athletics world record is recognised by World Athletics. For instance, Anne Flower is a world record holder according to the International Association of Ultrarunners, but World Athletics does not have a 50 miles race category. Maybe there could even be a separate Category:International Association of Ultrarunners record holders. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:42, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 17:57, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• If merged it should be a reverse merge, since Category:World Athletics record holders is a subset of Category:World record holders in the sport of athletics. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Traditional Cults

• Propose deleting Category:Traditional Cults (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, mostly contains redirects to articles about deities. The few actual articles are already in the tree of Category:Ancient Greek religion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Nominators' rationale is simply and visually untrue (at the time I'm writing this): funerary cult, cult religious practice, Roman imperial cult, imperial cult and Shinto cults are all included in the category and are not Greek. It's also not my fault that people don't write pages on cults from other societies. This is simply an editorial bias that should not be transformed into imagined fact.GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 10:21, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom, almost all of these are Ancient Greek religions. The articles we have in the Shinto context is a bad LLM translation and actually does not seem to have anything in common with the Greek cultic practice definition, but using it to mean something else. We cannot group articles based on them using the same word - especially a word that has a bunch of different definitions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Also if we were to have this category, "traditional cults" is not what we would call it. No one calls it that. Especially not in capital case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

The nominator refused to mention that it's undergoing a rename right now. I picked a bad name, sorry, I'm renaming it. It seems like an attempt to sneak in a deletion before it was renamed. 'does not seem to have anything in common with the Greek cultic practice definition.' Why are we randomly using some hyper-specific definition? It's not titled Greek cults, is it? Nor is that what's written in the category, nor the lede of Cult (religious practice)? Of course it doesn't fit the Greek definition; what kind of bad-faith argument is this?GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

The proposed name change would make this redundant to other categories. Is this category not meant to be Cult (religious practice)? If not, what is it supposed to be? Cult as a word means so many disparate things that if you're just using it for any article that has the word it is not appropriate. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

per the main article: 'Cult is the care owed to deities [like kami] or saints and their temples, shrines [like in shinto], or churches; cult is embodied in ritual and ceremony.'

per the category: 'This category is for traditional cults [being renamed to common name] which revolve around the care for and worship of a supernatural figure, such as saints, gods or heroes. This category is not to be confused with modern cults or cults of personality.'

per the page for the new definition of cult: 'Cults are social groups which have unusual, and often extreme, religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs'

These seem easily distinguishable to me.GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Are "Shinto cults" actually usually considered cults under this definition, though? How is this separable from normal paganism type faiths? A lot of Hindu worship would be cultic then and that does not seem to be how Hinduism is described. We use the term in reference to Shintoism in our categories, but all of our articles there I can see and all the categories were made by one editor who was later indef blocked for poor translations. Otherwise, all the articles and subcategories in the category related to Greece or Rome, articles that don't describe it as a cult, as far as I can see.

If you read to the definition section of the cult article the issue may become more apparent. But if the name is changed to cult (religious practice) I suppose it is limited. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Well academic literature uses the term cult to describe them, although sometimes they use worship (i.e. cultic worship). I can find endless example if you need here's one:

'The question I will address myself to here is how those involved in existing local kami cults (whom we can perhaps define as the ‘users’ of the age’s Shinto)" ([BOOK] Shinto: A short history) cited by 60 on google scholar

"our eyes to aspects of kami cults and Shinto traditions that have previously been ignored, but also to throw new light on the rituals, beliefs and ideas of such cults and traditions that have" (Introduction: Shinto past and present) cited by 21 on google scholar.Also see Gion cult on wiki. GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

The defintion of "cult" being employed here is that given by OED, s.v. cult, 2.a.: A particular form or system of religious worship or veneration, esp. as expressed in ceremony or ritual directed towards a specified figure or object. Frequently with of or modifying word. This is a clear and coherent definition frequently used in the context of religion, particularly ancient religion. It applies in the context of various kinds of religion and its use is certainly not restricted to ancient Greek religion. In fact, if one peruses the list of quotes provided by the OED under its definition, one can observe its use in the context of all sorts of religions, including ancient Greek religion, Christianity, Chinese and Japanese religion, ancient Roman religion, Buddhism, and Neolithic religion.

It isn't exactly true that the category is confined almost entirely to ancient Greek cults: it contains Cult of saints in Anglo-Saxon England, Funerary cult, Glycon, Imperial cult, María Lionza, Santa Muerte, and Category:Shinto cults. Even if every member of the category were about ancient Greek religion, I don't actually see why this would be a problem; the category would still have a well-defined scope and be sufficiently populated. Additional articles about non-Greek cults can be added as they're created.

As I've said below and elsewhere, your point about the unsuitability of the category's current title is very reasonable, and there's a fruitful discussion to be had about what it should be changed to. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Strong keep. There are plenty of pages that should be included in this category. I've added quite a few; as of writing this, the category includes over a dozen articles (without counting redirects) and seven subcategories. These articles pertain to various religions other than just ancient Greek religion. There are also plenty of pages about cults of particular deities that should exist but currently don't. Speaking only about my area of interest (that is, Greek religion), all of the following definitely ought to exist: Cult of Apollo, Cult of Aphrodite, Cult of Athena, Cult of Artemis, Cult of Hera, Cult of Heracles, Cult of Poseidon, Cult of Hermes, Cult of Demeter, and Cult of Persephone. I can think of another half a dozen or so Greek cults that might be eligible for creation, and, beyond these, there are presumably plenty from other religions.

The one problem this category does have is that the title "Traditional Cults" is a bit opaque (and also improperly capitalised). Myself and the category's creator discussed this and agreed that "Category:Religious cults" was a better title. That name isn't perfect, as acknowledged in that conversation; disputing the current or proposed title is understandable, but I can't see a reasonable case for deletion. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

"Religious cults" would be a 1-1 overlap with category:new religious movements and the "abusive religion" modern definition. Scientology, the Manson Family, etc, which we deleted at CfD multiple times and also grouping them together is not encyclopedic. Traditional cults as a term would also overlap with that. And we don't make categories for articles that don't exist. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Do you have any contructive ideas to differentiate a category for Cult (religious practice) and Cult (which you can look at the pages, they don't overlap).GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, we could just name it Cult (religious practice). That's the least bad option. I would no longer object to its existence if that is the case (but there's so much overlap with Ancient Greek religion I still don't see the rationale). PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I'd support that move, we'll see what others say. Although a bureaucratic question, would we wait until until the current rename is done and I'd put it up for rename again?

As for it being overwhelming Greek, that's an editor bias, not a decisive bias in actual literature. there's tons of literature on cults of christian saints from catholicism to the oriental orthodox church. There also cults in chinese folk, vietnamese folk, musok and shinto religions that are widely published about often explicitly using the term cult. This is only what I'm aware of. The redirects were a mistake, I saw it on other categories and thought it was okay. I was wrong. GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

No, we decide here whatever happens. A nom for delete can end in a rename or a merge and so on.

Okay, but we make categories based on what articles we currently have. If we have 2 categories that could have totally distinct sets but which have massive conceptual overlap and the same set of 10 articles we would not have 2 categories for them until we have enough articles to distinguish both categories. We would not make an empty category on an extremely notable concept no matter how notable it is, until we have enough articles in the category to fill it out.

The redirects are not disallowed in categories but a category cannot only be made up of redirects (most of the time I think there are some categories that are specific to redirects). PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I would say the presence of these six: funerary cult, cult religious practice, imperial cult (Roman imperial cult by proxy) and Shinto cults (by proxy gion cult), is enough to warrant a broader category, none of them are in ancient greek religion as far as I'm aware.GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced but as long as the name is neither "religious cults" or "traditional cults" I will not object to it being kept. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

If you read my comment where I suggested the title "Category:Religious cults", I both acknowledged this and referred to sources in which the qualifer "religious" is regardless used to disambiguate this kind of cult from others. I'm by no means suggesting that the proposed title is unimpeachable; in the very comment to which you're replying, I say that disputing the current or proposed title is understandable. But inappropriate titling of a category does not warrant its deletion. As to Traditional cults as a term would also overlap with that, I'm not sure what this is directed at: I've been unequivocal thoughout that I think "Category:Tradional Cults" is a poor name. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Searching "religious cults" on Google books or google scholar I am overwhelmingly getting sources that refer to cult or new religious movement. Almost all of them, actually. but inappropriate titling of a category does not warrant its deletion but if we cannot find a way to properly distinguish the topics that may. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

As I think I've made abundantly clear, I'm not married to the title "Category:Religious cults". Your second point, that we must find a way to properly distinguish the topics, is true, but I think this should be more than feasible, because (as I've explained above) the term "cult" is being used here in accordance with a coherent definition. Your suggestion that we name the category "Category:Cult (religious practice)" seems like a sensible starting point. It's unambiguous, which is a valuable step forward. My main concern is that I would expect a category titled "Category:Cult (religious practice)" to contain articles related to cult as a concept, rather than articles about individual cults. Is "Cults (religious practice)" perhaps better in this regard? It retains the effective disambiguation whilst implying via the plural that contained within are multiple cults. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Plural would also be fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: As a way of better differentiating this topic from the more commonplace usage of Cult, would Cult (devotional practice) be clearer than Cult (religious practice)? But Category:Cults (religious practices) would do for this category while the article is at its current title. Ham II (talk) 08:42, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  I think this is also a good sugestion, devotional practice is more specific and clearer. GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  Renaming the article might be sensible; I'd be happy to participate in a discussion at Talk:Cult (religious practice). My main reservation with the specific title "Cult (devotional practice)" is that the kind of "cult" under discussion pertains more to action than devotion. Sources which define "cult" are unambiguous that it revolves around action; for example, Fabrizio Vecoli, in The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, s.v. Cult, writes that “Cult,” coupled with the qualifier “religious,” then broadly refers to all actions that could be performed with the goal of honoring an entity or a superhuman force with which man “cultivates” a relationship (even if it is only to appease it). The notion that an action-based (that is, cultic) aspect of religion sits in opposition to a faith- or devotion-based one ties into an area of scholarship with a long and tangled history, which I'm not qualified to summarise; see Vecoli's discussion of the matter as a starting point. An example of the two being presented in opposition to one another in the context of a discussion of the word "cult" is Fritz Graf's statement in Brill's New Pauly, s.v. Cult, that [the term "cult"] can in pagan language stand simply for ‘religion’ in general and thus refer to the absolute predominance in pagan Greek and Roman religion of ritual actions over faith. Another example would be Jennifer Larson's statement on p. 1 of her Ancient Greek Cults (2007) that “Cult” comes from the same Latin root as “cultivate,” which is fitting because ancient worship was predicated less on faith or belief (which was normally taken for granted) than on concrete actions such as sacrifice, votive offerings, and festivals, repeated as one might repeatedly water a garden in order to encourage its growth.

  As you say, though, naming the category Category:Cults (religious practice) should be defensible whilst the article bears its current title, which it presumably will for at least the duration of this discussion. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:18th-century British women journalists

• Propose deleting Category:18th-century British women journalists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. Already in categories for 18th-century British journalists, 18th-century women journalists and 18th-century British women writers so no merge necessary. LibStar (talk) 06:42, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Now has 5 entries with a quick search. Trout nominator for not conducting a proper WP:BEFORE. Katzrockso (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete for now, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment we have never established any guideline that suggests that editors are obligated to conduct studies of category viability before nominating them. It would be wrong to punish editors for not abiding by rules that do not exist. The reality is Wikipedia was created in a very haphazard way. To this day we have lots of under categorized articles. In my systematic review of all biographies by year of death, in which I am to 1883, I have found several articles in just birth and death or even just death year categories and no other. It is a lot of work to find articles not anywhere in a tree, and in many cases is better to upmerge a tree into a few categories that aid navigation now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, 4 entries is more than enough, useful for navigation. Fram (talk) 09:52, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Additionally, I concur with John Pack Lambert. Wikipedia is huge (yay!), which sometimes makes it hard to find enough articles to justify a category (alas...). Sometimes, it's just better to merge categories so that in the future, if there are enough categories, you can diffuse properly with categories that will be able to stick around. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 17:50, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  That makes little sense. If we don't delete it now, it already "sticks around". Deleting this in the hope that there will be enough categories in the future seems lke a self-defeating prophecy. Fram (talk) 08:29, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per Fram, the category has expanded since then nomination into a small but navigationally important journalism-category collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Antiziganist political parties

• Propose deleting Category:Antiziganist political parties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion , we do not label groups or people with these "bias categories". See recent discussion here . PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Strong Keep; 'organizations' is a broad category, whereas 'political parties' is a narrower one, and this category does not seem likely to be highly controversial. Moreover, I am not the person who first created this category: ProgramT (talk) 06:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Well, yeah, I wasn't targeting you. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete political parties are organizations, therefore they fall under the ban.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Staraction (talk · contribs) 06:13, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 14:19, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete in this case this is labeling political parties by what is normally not clearly a central view. It also is conflating one group that advocated for and carried out the mass murder of Romani people with other groups that were not in favor of murder, so this is conflating very unlike things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Political parties with anti-Korean sentiment

• Propose deleting Category:Political parties with anti-Korean sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion , we do not label groups or people with these "bias categories". See recent discussion here . PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Strong Keep; 'organizations' is a broad category, whereas 'political parties' is a narrower one, and this category does not seem likely to be highly controversial. ProgramT (talk) 06:49, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete political parties are organizations therefore they fall under the ban.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Staraction (talk · contribs) 06:13, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 14:17, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete This goes against our general policy against opinion categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Arab political parties

• Propose deleting Category:Anti-Arab political parties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion , we do not label groups or people with these "bias categories". See recent discussion here . PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Strong Keep; 'organizations' is a broad category, whereas 'political parties' is a narrower one, and this category does not seem likely to be highly controversial. ProgramT (talk) 06:49, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete political parties are organizations therefore they fall under the ban.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Staraction (talk · contribs) 06:13, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 14:16, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete another category that goes against the general policy against opinion categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Political parties with anti-Hungarian sentiment

• Propose deleting Category:Political parties with anti-Hungarian sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion , we do not label groups or people with these "bias categories". See recent discussion here . PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Strong Keep; 'organizations' is a broad category, whereas 'political parties' is a narrower one, and this category does not seem likely to be highly controversial. ProgramT (talk) 06:49, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete political parties are organizations therefore they fall under the ban.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Staraction (talk · contribs) 06:13, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 14:15, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete we really should avoid opinion catehories. In this case these are really policical parties expressing post-colonial views within thd former colonized areas within the Kingdom of Hungary. Rhis is not a good way to group things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Alumni by high school in Alberta

• Propose renaming Category:Alumni by high school in Alberta to Category:Alumni by secondary school in Alberta

Nominator's rationale: This is the only Canadian province which uses high school for an alumni category, see Category:Alumni by secondary school in British Columbia, Category:Alumni by secondary school in Ontario, and Category:Alumni by secondary school in Quebec. I think Category:High schools in Canada should also be renamed but that is a different discussion. User:Namiba 20:52, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• The articles say "high school" though. @Bearcat: can you provide input here? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Staraction (talk · contribs) 06:12, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Spirit drinks

• Propose merging Category:Spirit drinks to Category:Distilled drinks

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT chickenpox4dinner (talk · contribs · email) 04:22, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: They're not the same subject. Distilled drinks are a subset of spirit drinks. A spirit drink is any alcoholic beverage above 15% ABV, while a distilled drink is specifically a spirit drink produced through distillation. Therefore, every distilled beverage is a spirit drink, but not every spirit drink is simply a distilled beverage. There are other spirit drinks such bitters and liqueurs, produced through maceration or flavoring of alcohol. --BohemianRhapsody (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  Is that not an arbitrary legal definition by the EU Spirit Drinks Regulations 2008? And macerated alcohols are still produced using distilled alcohol, the category status quo for the spread of alcoholic beverages is largely distilled vs non-distilled. The difference seems semantic and would better served by creating ABV categories. chickenpox4dinner (talk · contribs · email) 15:34, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  Is that not an arbitrary legal definition by the EU Spirit Drinks Regulations 2008[?] If so, perhaps the category should instead be renamed to tie it more explicitly to the EU classification. I live in a US state with restrictive liquor laws that mandate several peculiar and/or technically misapplied labels ("ale" is locally infamous), and I've never heard of any beverage being described as a "spirit drink". Carguychris (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  • We should not have categories based on a cut-off that is applicable in only one part of the world. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Woke

• Propose deleting Category:Woke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Articles related to a term with multiple meanings doesn't seem like a useful category. Seems like it's just social justice or anti-social justice topics where someone has applied the word "woke" to it somewhere in the text? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 10:36, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, not a defining characteristic of the articles in the category. We should perhaps discuss the subcategory too. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NONDEF and subcategory should also be deleted for similar reasons. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:11, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per above. VegaDark (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've tagged the subcategory.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and delete subcat. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 14:14, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Marcocapelle. Also, "woke" is not only hard to define, it's increasingly being used as a pejorative propaganda term by the US right wing, similar to "commie", "libtard", or "Isalamofascist". It is increasingly being used to label people and organizations that have never identified themselves as woke and don't fit neatly into older definitions of the term (e.g., LGBTQ+ advocates, antifa, and a certain well-known Senate candidate from Texas). We shouldn't use contemporary pejorative terms in category names; it invites abuse. Carguychris (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete what is and is not woke is open to dispute. Not just among people who use it to label policies they oppose but also among people who use it to label rhings they support. Categories need to have agreed upon definitions, which this does not. It also is often used to label things such as films that even the labeler may admit is inly describing one thing and not actually a central characteristic of the whole work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
• Strong keep although it has recently been used more often as a derogatory term by conservative forces, it is a useful category if limited to a specific scope. ProgramT (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Retribution

• Propose deleting Category:Retribution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. This category is subjective, imprecise, and unnecessary. Also, the scope of this category unclear. Cyrobyte (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, subjective and non-defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, not only subjective and non-defining, but also impossibly broad. (I'd posit that well over half of all wars in human history were started at least partially for this reason.) Carguychris (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to Category:Revenge I took the liberty of removing this category from articles that didn't explicity mention 'retribution' by name, since it was a judgement call to have added it in the first place. But the remaining 31 pages in the category at least explicitly mention 'retribution' by name. But no objection to deleting the category, if that's the consensus. It is hard to define retribution as a category, other than by the use of the word in the article. And it's hard to define retaliation, revenge, reprisal and retribution as separate categories. They could all be categorized more broadly under revenge. Faolin42 (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Buryat-speaking ethnic groups

• Propose merging Category:Buryat-speaking ethnic groups to Category:Buryats

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer Arctic Circle System (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge, only one article, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge only 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

September 17

Category:Swiss politicians of Assyrian descent

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Propose deleting Category:Swiss politicians of Assyrian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There are presently no other biographies that fit in this category, and the one that does is already part of the bigger category of "Swiss people of Assyrian descent". PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete this one article category hinders navigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Humble Bundle

• Propose deleting Category:Humble Bundle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary now that Humble Games has been sold and turned into its own unrelated entity. Of the 2 other category members, both are largely unrelated to the Humble Bundle itself, for example Red Screen was later published in You Like It Darker. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:01, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Ancient LGBTQ

• Category:Ancient LGBTQ people (delete)
• Category:Ancient Greek LGBTQ people (delete)
• Category:Ancient Greek LGBTQ men (delete)
• Category:Ancient Roman LGBTQ people (delete)
• Category:Ancient Chinese LGBTQ people (delete)
• This was previously brought up User:Joe Roe when these were renamed in 2024 in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_September_11#LGBT_nominations_which_were_opposed_at_CFDS, the people in these categories are hard to map onto our modern understanding of sexuality. Wikipedia:CATLGBTQ suggests "a broad consensus of academic and/or biographical scholarship about the topic is sufficient to describe a person as LGBTQ", and I don't think such consensus exists, as Homosexuality in ancient Rome and similar articles describe how sexuality was not understood in terms of gender attraction. I would be interested if others have ideas on how these could be renamed instead, or if you think they are fine as is with changes to their content.

--HappiestSisyphus (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

It is hard to map LGBTQ onto ancient peoples, but I don't think it is impossible. There are two respects in which it occurs: 1. Ancient sources do refer to people who were particularly associated with attraction to people of the same gender and/or to people who sought to present themselves as a gender other than that to which they were assigned at birth (and this is noted in modern scholarly sources). 2. Numerous ancient people are looked to by moderns as LGBTQ models / precursors and that has become a crucial part of their modern reception (e.g. Sappho, after whom lesbianism is literally named). Furius (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Sappho#Sexuality has a significant portion about the modern active debate on weather she 'was a lesbian', which in my opinion should disqualify her under WP:CATLGBTQ.

And using the same reasoning in that section, I think it is wrong to categorize both Flavius Earinus (who currently is categorized), a eunuch slave to Domitian (who currently isn't categorized) as LGBTQ even though their homosexual acts are not contested.

I could see a category for something like a "Ancient Roman people significant for their same-sex relationships" or "gender non-conformance" to describe the modern role some of these people have. HappiestSisyphus (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• Possibly rename to e.g. Category:Ancient disputed LGBTQ people or Category:Ancient people associated with homosexuality. It seems to be a defining characteristic for some ancient people. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• I agree that "LGBTQ" and its variations are of dubious application with persons from antiquity—none of them would have been familiar with any of the definitions that we give these terms today, and the extent to which persons from antiquity were gay, lesbian, or bisexual in modern terms is frequently disputed by scholars and rests on limited evidence, much of which is inferred and possibly tainted by scandal, malicious rumor, and propaganda. As for alternative titles for a category, I was going to suggest Category:Homosexuality in antiquity as a simpler title that doesn't depend on either definite knowledge of specific persons or the existence of a controversy. However, I see we already have Category:Ancient history of homosexuality without any subcategories. Perhaps it should be a subcategory of that, or vice-versa. P Aculeius (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• Rename To Category:Ancient gender non-conforming people and similar for the rest of the categories. I do think the topic is a notable one, and certain ancient people have become notable in modern culture and scholarship for this reason, but ascribing the "LGBTQ" label to them is unacceptably anachronistic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:49, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
  • I don't see that Category:Ancient gender non-conforming people is any better. To the Greeks and Romans, same-sex relationships were perfectly gender-conforming so long as you performed them correctly; while e.g. Agathon (at least as portrayed by Euripides) or Philaenis in Martial's satires might fit into that category, I'm not convinced that most of the people currently in these categories would. Theognis wrote poetry about his male lover, but I don't know that he would have been considered gender non-conforming, for instance. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:01, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• I have complicated feelings on this. On the one hand, as the nominator says, it's difficult to map modern concepts of gender and sexuality onto ancient figures, and even those figures who are most strongly associated with queerness (e.g. Sappho) are often the subject of dispute as to their sexuality. On the other hand, there definitely are ancient figures where their association with queerness is a defining characteristic. Whether or not you believe Sappho was a lesbian, her association with lesbianism is surely the defining thing about her to a non-specialist audience. Similarly Antinous, Harmodius and Aristogeiton (so notable as lovers that we have a single article on the pair of them!), perhaps Alcibiades (who did marry a woman and have children, but his relationship with Socrates is an important part of his biographical tradition) are all strongly associated with homosexuality... I do think it's valuable to have a category for this.
  On the gripping hand, there are several people currently in this category tree whose queerness, even if we accept that as an unproblematic way of viewing their sexuality, I do not think is defining – I have already removed Leaena, for whom a heterosexual relationship is basically the entirety of her biographical tradition, but is association with queerness really defining for e.g. Aristides and Themistocles? A tradition known to us from Plutarch, 500 years after their deaths, says that their rivalry was due to having competed for the same boy's love. I do not think it is a particularly important part of either off their biographical traditions. Whatever we do with this category tree, if we keep some version of it, it would be worth removing the less relevant articles.
  On the whole I think Marcocapelle's suggestion of Category:Ancient people associated with homosexuality makes the most sense, but it would violate WP:OCASSOC. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

People who fabricated academic degrees

• Propose renaming Category:People who fabricated academic degrees to Category:People who fabricated academic credentials
• Propose renaming Category:American people who fabricated academic degrees to Category:American people who fabricated academic credentials

Nominator's rationale: renaming would encompass other types of potentially notable academic fraud, such as falsely claiming mere attendance at a university, without creating numerous overly narrow and specific additional categories. Carguychris (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• Do we have articles about people falsely claiming mere attendance at a university? It feels like a silly false claim to me, but I may be wrong in that. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  Jesse Marcel claimed that he attended but did not graduate from four universities that he either never lived near or don't have any record of him. (I recently made these edits to his page, which is what made me think about this proposed name change.) This is certainly not the sole reason he's notable, but it's discussed at length in WP:RS. Another good example is Ravi Zacharias, who, as I understand it, claimed to have been a visiting professor at Oxford when he was merely a visiting scholar at an associated institution. Carguychris (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  • Jason Arday made multiple false claims about where he was a visiting professor or what title he had there. Frank Abernagnsle made a false claim of having worked as a professor at an institution. Like most of his claims of having fraudulantly done things it appears to have been a complete lie. These are I think a seperate category from the false degrees though. They alsk get complex. Because I can see some of thess luars claiminv that when thry said they were a "visiting scholar" they meant that they were a scholar who was visiting, and so givimg one lecture counts. Alrhough with some of them probably the rruth is that they were present at one lecture where they asked a question in the question and answer session. In some cases the person was never even present at the university he or she clsims to have been a vidiring professor at. Since most universities do not keep records of attendabce at lectures and speeches, and even full records of every lecture od speech that happens as a one time event at a university probably do not exist. Esprcially if we get into all events occuring on a campus. Many if which are run by studebt organizations, one of hundreds of depsrtments, and some are outside events that are happening on university space as paid guests. I have been involved in the later both with youth enents and a company event. There are all sorts of ways people who bwmd the truth can. I do think false claums of academic degrees and fakse claims if being faculty/academic staff (the wording for this role is different in different places) are two sepwrats things that need to be two sepeeate categories, or at least can be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Found footage films about psychopaths and sociopaths

• Propose deleting Category:Found footage films about psychopaths and sociopaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Does not seem to be a defining intersection. Found footage is, psychopaths maybe, but the intersection, no. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• Upmerge. Non-defining per nom. But most of the articles are not in the parent cats Category:Found footage films and Category:Films about psychopaths and sociopaths, but they previously were. Or at least were in Category:Found footage films, because the creator of Category:Found footage films about psychopaths and sociopaths added the articles to it and for some reason to parent Category:Films about psychopaths and sociopaths at the same time. A week later both those parent cats were removed by another user. And it is worth noting that Category:Films about psychopaths and sociopaths (and its other subcats Category:Films about child psychopaths and sociopaths/Category:Films about female psychopaths and sociopaths) was created by the same user who created the category nominated here, and apparently it wasn't filled with great care. So I can't say if that category is appropriate here or in general. Οἶδα (talk) 02:55, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  Support upmerge. That's actually what I meant to nom I just clicked the wrong button. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge, trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

1070s establishments in England

• Propose merging Category:1070 establishments in England to Category:1070s establishments in England and Category:1070 in England and Category:1070 establishments in Europe (2 pages)
• Propose merging Category:1071 establishments in England to Category:1070s establishments in England and Category:1071 in England and Category:1071 establishments in Europe (4)
• Propose merging Category:1075 establishments in England to Category:1070s establishments in England and Category:1075 in England and Category:1075 establishments in Europe (3)
• Propose merging Category:1076 establishments in England to Category:1070s establishments in England and Category:1076 in England and Category:1076 establishments in Europe (3)
• Propose merging Category:1077 establishments in England to Category:1070s establishments in England and Category:1077 in England and Category:1077 establishments in Europe (1)
• Propose merging Category:1078 establishments in England to Category:1070s establishments in England and Category:1078 in England and Category:1078 establishments in Europe (1)
• Propose merging Category:1079 establishments in England to Category:1070s establishments in England and Category:1079 in England and Category:1079 establishments in Europe (2)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCYEAR. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 19:37, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge per nom and per precedent. Preferably merge all 11th-century year categories for consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Marcocapelle I am going through decade by decade to ensure that clear consensus can be made for each merge, rather than one big merge which can make it difficult to discuss (occasionally). Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 22:01, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. I have seen too many large nominations derailed by gripes about one outlier. At this point I am willing to suppport any nomination of any category that is too narrow no matter how many like categories there are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Two-ingredient cocktails

• Propose deleting Category:Two-ingredient cocktails (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Same rationale as for Category:Three-ingredient cocktails: Having two ingredients is WP:NONDEFINING of a cocktail; where an ingredient begins or ends is also squirrelly, e.g. is sparkling lemonade in the case of a Tom Collins just one ingredient, two (lemon & club soda), or three (lemon, soda water, sugar)? P.S. I've started Category:Highballs as a possible replacement schema for sorting. chickenpox4dinner (talk · contribs · email) 19:32, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 19:37, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Three-ingredient cocktails

• Propose deleting Category:Three-ingredient cocktails (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Having three ingredients is WP:NONDEFINING of a cocktail; where an ingredient begins or ends is also squirrelly, e.g. is sparkling lemonade in the case of a Tom Collins just one ingredient, two (lemon & club soda), or three (lemon, soda water, sugar)? P.S. I've started Category:Highballs as a possible replacement schema for sorting. chickenpox4dinner (talk · contribs · email) 19:19, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 19:36, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Owners of plantations in the United Kingdom

• Propose renaming Category:Owners of plantations in the United Kingdom to Category:Owners of plantations from the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: or Category:British plantation owners. The cat, previously Category:British planters, was swept into a mass renaming of "Foo planters" cats here, but the present name makes no sense: the plantations are not in the UK. Ingratis (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Boots the Blackfoot Ferret 18:20, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
• Rename somehow per nom. Category:British plantation owners sounds more natural than Category:Owners of plantations from the United Kingdom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy with Category:British plantation owners. Ingratis (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete we made the dwcision to categorize plqntation owners by where the plantations were. We have deleted other categories for countries where there were not plantations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Plantation owners by country of origin is also a legitimate categorisation. If the discussion did not acknowledge that then it was not very thorough. Ingratis (talk) 06:53, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Manual deletion is fine too. It is the location of the plantation that is relevant here, not the home country of the owner. The articles should stay in the tree of Owners of plantations though. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

You'll have to explain in more detail exactly why Category:British plantation owners cannot be allowed to exist alongside the various "Owners of plantations in..." cats. Ingratis (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Battles of the War of the Sicilian Vespers

• Propose merging Category:Battles of the War of the Sicilian Vespers to Category:War of the Sicilian Vespers and Category:Battles of the Wars of the Guelphs and Ghibellines

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer Arctic Circle System (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Category:War of the Sicilian Vespers per nom. I am not so sure about merge target Category:Battles of the Wars of the Guelphs and Ghibellines, these wars were rather in the north of Italy. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

electronic literature writers

• Propose merging Category:Chilean electronic literature writers (1) to Category:Electronic literature writers
• Propose merging Category:Chinese-language electronic literature writers (1) to Category:Electronic literature writers
• Propose merging Category:Colombian electronic literature writers (1) to Category:Electronic literature writers
• Propose merging Category:Dutch electronic literature writers (1) to Category:Electronic literature writers
• Propose merging Category:Egyptian electronic literature writers (1) to Category:Electronic literature writers
• Propose merging Category:Irish electronic literature writers (1) to Category:Electronic literature writers
• Propose merging Category:Israeli electronic literature writers (1) to Category:Electronic literature writers
• Propose merging Category:New Zealand electronic literature writers (1) to Category:Electronic literature writers
• Propose merging Category:Polish electronic literature writers (1) to Category:Electronic literature writers
• Propose merging Category:Portuguese electronic literature writers (1) to Category:Electronic literature writers
• Propose merging Category:Serbian electronic literature writers (1) to Category:Electronic literature writers
• Propose merging Category:Venezuelan electronic literature writers (1) to Category:Electronic literature writers

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated categories, upmerge for now. Each of these only has one person in it. There's not need to do this. If not upmerged, Chinese-language electronic literature writers should be renamed Chinese electronic literature writers to be consistent with the rest of the tree. ^SMason_Garrison 13:59, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

@Lijil and @ME(hu)lit what do you think? I tend to agree, and we could just categorize with Polish writer, etc. LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment What about regional subcategories instead? E.g. European, Asian, African, North-American, South-American etc? I want there to be a way to find writers from a particular country or, sure, language. I see that categories with 1 entry are unfortunate. I think there are too many to put everyone in Category:Electronic literature writers. It seems inconsistent to me if we allow categories like British electronic literature writers but not for smaller countries. As a user from a small country I like being able to find content relevant to my context and not feel like Wikipedia is only for big countries. But I get that 1 entry categories aren’t ideal. Lijil (talk) 06:34, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, maybe by language? But we have so many more works in other languages that we need to write up!

We could always do a list, like we have done for List of electronic literature authors, critics, and works --but the human edited list has a different purpose--to serve as a quick intro. and it is listed alphabetically--not by country or language?

Thanks for joining the conversation. LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Category:Electronic literature writers: Per nom. No need for multiple categories with single entries. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 14:25, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Diffusion by country does not improve navigation of the existing articles. Οἶδα (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
• The overall structure here seems very unclear: natural writer groupings are by language, not nationality (or residence). Why "Chinese-language" (presumably combining a lot of countries), but specific "Chilean" and "Venezuelan"? Merge to simplify, consider dismantling this hierarchy altogether. --Викидим (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per all of the above. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge one article categories actively hinder navigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
• Merge all per nom. LibStar (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:English-language television series

• Propose merging Category:English-language television series to Category:English-language television shows

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate scope of the older parent category, just using alternative wording. This category title should instead be a redirect to the parent cat. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 13:55, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not the same scope, not "just alternative wording". The distinction between "series" and "shows" is used throughout the entire television category system so if there is an issue with that then that is a larger, systemic issue that is not going to be solved by focusing on this one category. I'm assuming you're proposing a merge because, in normal conversation, the terms are often used interchangeably. But on Wikipedia, Television shows indicates otherwise. And Category:Television shows used to be named Category:Television programs but was renamed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 31#Category:Television programs. The other "programs" categories were renamed because BrownHairedGirl proposed them for speedy renaming on the grounds of that CfD. You can read some of that speedy discussion here. If that isn't accurate, why we do have Category:Television shows and Category:Television series? Why do we have Category:Television shows by type? Presumably because not all articles of television programming are series articles. Some are one-off programs. Television films are not series, Television specials are not series, etc. See List of television formats and genres. Not saying I agree with that CfD. I don't know how I feel about that. When I first approached this categorization some years ago, I assumed they were the same because it wasn't very clear or obvious tbh. But that is the current system. Οἶδα (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Οἶδα: Doh! Okay, that is actually a very compelling argument that I did not fully consider, my bad. However, the categories probably ought to then be diffused to ensure the programs are in the shows cat and actual long-running series are in the other, because there appears to be some overlap, henceforth why I requested a merge as it was what I had presumed to be the most logical solution without looking as extensively into it as I should have. Perhaps it may be more feasible to revert back to the programs term for the categories, though I suppose that would be up to a wider discussion at WT:TV. Thank you for providing this clarity, and I will use this to remind myself to conduct more thorough due diligence. (I knew I shouldn't have started editing this morning without my coffee!) — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 03:30, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  the categories probably ought to then be diffused to ensure the programs are in the shows cat and actual long-running series are in the other, because there appears to be some overlap

  Category:English-language television shows used to contain 17,000+ articles until it was diffused to country subcats. More recently I further diffused to series by date. If you're referring to the 125 or so articles not yet diffused at Category:English-language television series, I did not diffuse those because they have not premiered yet so in accordance with the category standards they should not be diffused to "debuts" until they have in fact debuted.

  Thank you for providing this clarity, and I will use this to remind myself to conduct more thorough due diligence. (I knew I shouldn't have started editing this morning without my coffee!)

  No worries. The issue is certainly more convoluted than I'd like it to be. Οἶδα (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  On that same note, I overlooked this discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 6#Television program(me)s, which I only just found now. It is... extensive to say the least. That is without a doubt the longest CfD I have ever come across. Wow. Οἶδα (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Spacecraft by launch system

• Propose a containerization modification Category:Spacecraft by launch system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: see preliminary rationale at Category talk:Spacecraft by launch system. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 13:39, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• Not clear what you are proposing here. Perhaps the cat for space launch vehicles should be renamed/split to space launch systems, but until them there seems to be little we can or should do at Spacecraft by launch system. Fram (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for your reply. For clarity I'll copy/past here: "Category:Spacecraft by launch system should not be a subcategory of Category:Space launch vehicles." (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 14:20, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  I would oppose removing that category as a parent if there is no alternative better one created first. The "by launch system" clearly is closely related to the "launch vehicles" tree, even if one can quibble about the system/vehicles distinction. Fram (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks again for your reply. Here's what prompted me to raise the question: the query https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=-hastemplate%3A%22Short+description%22+deepcat%3A%22Space+launch+vehicles%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%22fields%22%3A%7B%22deepcategory%22%3A%5B%22Space+launch+vehicles%22%5D%7D%7D&ns0=1 asks for all articles about launch vehicles that lack a short description. The list is essentially dominated by articles on spacecraft, that have nothing to do with launch vehicles. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 15:04, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• @Sdsds: shouldn't the category be renamed to Category:Spacecraft launched by rocket family and moved to the rocket families tree? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose, not convinced by the reason given. Problems with a query or its results should not be a reason to remove an otherwise useful or correct category. It's not uncmmon to have subcats which have a different scope than the parent in your query results (e.g. a search for singers which lack short descriptions would result in a query showing songs or albums which lack short descriptions, that's the way this works). E.g. this query is not a reason to remove countless subcats from the songwriters category. Fram (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I understand this would set a difficult precedent. Suggesting, "That's the way this works" isn't equivalent to suggesting, "That's the way this should work." What we currently do is misleading our readers. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 18:39, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  is this category not a category of spacecraft by launch system? If not, then what would be a better name. If yes, then how it is misleading our readers? Fram (talk) 08:30, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  • Antares (rocket family), Ariane (rocket family) and Atlas (rocket family) are said to be "rocket families" rather than launch systems. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:18, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

    No objection to the cateory being renamed to ... by rocket family. But rocket families are still a subcat of space launch vehicles, so I guess this does nothing for the original complaint and won't satisfy them. Fram (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Category:Lebanese cardiologists

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 September 24#Category:Lebanese cardiologists

Older discussions

The above are up to 7 days old. For a list of unclosed discussions more than seven days old, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All old discussions. For older closed and unclosed discussions, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Previous 8 to 21 days.